Wednesday, August 28

The Syrian Regional War: NATO on deck!






   Looks like NATO and Obama's tech geeks are going ahead with a 'limited' attack on Syria.

  [UPDATE 9/26] Obama's nerds realized the bad idea was bad..

  The US has four destroyers in the Mediterranean right now each packing 90 Tomahawks apiece plus the British have a Trafalgar class submarine offshore and a Rapid Reaction force setting up shop at Akrotiri in Cyprus. It's hard to figure the real justification here (outside of the details I gave in my previous post) but the international media play here seems to be: "Assad unleashed his chemical weaponry and wasted civilians so now it's time for the West to bring some kinetic blast energy into the mix to punish Assad for killing people in an unapproved way." Yep, it seems the reasoning behind the attack is going to be that retarded. You kill your people via asphyxiation so we'll kill more of your people via high explosive and that'll teach you a lesson for your "moral obscenity".

   Such is the madness of war.

   Of course, this can't be the only reason for the attack and the above reason is just the bullshit they're going to print in the newspapers. A recent poll indicated 60% of the American public are against any intervention in Syria (because they're smart) but modern proxy resource war is never a game of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" so there is no 'ask the audience' option. The corporate oligarchy are just gonna go ahead and blow shit up and continue with the wider plan of gobbling up the entire energy riches of the Middle East.

   Syria will be first on the permanently destabilized list, followed later by Iran.

   This attack, for the moment, is being advertised as merely a 'one off strike' to punish Assad for using chemical weapons (if he used them, more on that later). It's the "poke the hornets nest with a stick and see what happens" theory of war. If Assad reacts and does something stupid like launching missiles at Israel (highly unlikely) then NATO will pounce and bring on the real war, armed with the excuse to retaliate they can feed to their surveillance state nominal 'democracies' back home. If Assad is smart and he sure seems to be, then the correct reaction to the NATO attack will be to do nothing and instead offer up the usual parade of dead babies to world TV cameras.

    And this is where the story gets real shady for me.

   Assad by all accounts is not a stupid man. He attended Western universities. He's a trained eye doctor. This at least must mean he's not a total idiot, right? Why then would he use nerve gas at a time when the rebel factions aligned against him are fracturing, fighting amongst themselves and losing control of towns? Assad's forces seem to have gained a slight initiative in this war and now suddenly, just as he begins winning, he breaks out chemical weapons and hands NATO the golden invitation to walk into his country?

   It just doesn't make sense on the very fundamental level known as common sense.

   The things is, who these days is gonna trust the US or UK when they say WMDs are a legit reason to enter a war? It is a fact that chemical weapons exist in Syria but the real issue here is, who used them? It may be hard to believe Assad is that stupid but of course, that does not mean he isn't that stupid. War is not a logical environment and the common sense I mentioned above may not be applicable at all. Maybe Assad felt that by using a terror weapon and getting away with it, that act alone would be a morale shatterer for the rebels and allow his forces to go on the full offensive; knowing that pesky entrenched rebel holdouts could be gassed out of their positions with ease. Maybe Assad was testing the waters to bring about an offensive chemical game changer to end the war decisively? We just can't know and no side in any of this as of this writing seems inclined to deliver definitive proof of who is responsible. Still, none of it passes the smell test does it?

   Do not watch the video below if you would prefer to avoid the horrors of nerve gas (NSFL).






 Assad's actions after the chemical story broke are telling too. He immediately offered to let UN inspectors in to examine the sites where the chemicals were allegedly used. Obviously, he's studied the West's WMD playbook in Iraq and learned from Saddam that stalling on this issue provides the West with justification for an invasion. Sure, that could be a bluff too, designed to play well with a foreign anti war public; the logic being that he at least tried to prove his innocence but the damn rebels prevented the UN convoy from getting through to the chemical sites. Maybe, he's like the shark in Jaws, either very dumb or very smart... he's gone under the media.

  Even the mainstream media are asking these questions now but it is testimony to our times that the precedent for wars without Congressional approval, without UN approval, wars that are illegal under international law; all can happen anyway because of the precedents set in Iraq 2003. Even the will of the majority of the public can be set aside by those in power. Hope and Change was all just a slick marketing campaign. Now we see why Obama didn't go after the Bush Administration and instead made them all immune from prosecution. Another precedent was set... that of total freedom from liability for those who would run the empire and its global proxy resource wars. A freedom from liability the Noble Peace Prize winner himself will avail of when he himself presses the red button on Syria later this week. If he does because deep down I still don't get where victory lies here. Obama's defenders will say that the White House did warn that chemical usage was a "redline" moment and the US will look weak if they do not strike punitively as a matter of proving the US point. One thing is for sure though and that's that any overt foreign involvement in Syria just leads to more clusterfuck. Unfortunately, this is the only truth you will find in the Syrian Regional War.


   Meanwhile, yesterday in Syria, shit got even more shady. Suddenly, on their way to the nerve gas attack sites, the investigating UN convoy took incoming fire and was forced to retreat before inspecting anything.  Let's look at the possibilities here in the absence of cold hard facts.

  A) The snipers were Assad's forces trying to stop the UN from discovering the truth behind the usage of nerve gas. Assad invited the UN team in as a ruse, just to seem like an honest broker and then had his snipers shoot up the convoy knowing they would flee. He then blamed the shooting on the rebels and appealed to world anti war sentiment under the idea that he did all he could to try to prove his forces innocent of chemical weapons usage.

  B) The snipers were in fact rebel factions trying to prevent the UN from discovering that the rebels themselves were responsible for the gas attack either using stolen chemical artillery shells looted from Assad's arsenals or, worse still, chemical weapons supplied from outside Syria by a foreign menagerie of sleazy enemies with an interest in watching Syria burn.

  C) The snipers were foreign CIA/Mossad/Turkish agents running a covert mission to interdict the UN convoy to stop the inspectors from discovering that the chemical weapons came from foreign sources, were not part of Assad's arsenal and that the rebels perpetrated the attack themselves; all this with the added bonus of confirming the fact that Assad is a callous killer who would fire on unarmed UN inspectors.

  D) The snipers are just random assholes. It's a war zone after all. Some dick shot at the convoy because he hates white SUVs, hates his job, hates the war and the guy banging his wife drives a white car so he fired shots and it's all just random mad shit.

   One of the above is the truth. But which one is it?

   They say truth is the first casualty in any war so here we go again...


Those blast points, too accurate for sand people?


   The impending NATO strike is being presented as a sort of 'slap on the wrist' attack in world media.

   To know if this is true, all we will have to do is wait to see what the primary targets for the initial Tomahawk cruise missile strikes will be. The targets designated here will be crucial in figuring out where NATO is planning on taking this war. If most of the targets are X band strikes against Syria's air defense radars than we can be pretty sure this is just the opening salvo and NATO intends to take air superiority over Syria and fill the skies later on with ground support aircraft for the rebels, a Libya part II if you like. However, if the strikes are primarily against Assad himself, his house, his swimming pool, his Bentley, government buildings and some military bases and command and control centers then, that might fit the advertising as a "punitive measure" type attack. Obviously, limited strikes against all of the above will keep NATO intentions muddled for now and will be the probable course of action. But we will still learn a lot from the extent of strikes against Assad's air defense systems. And we'd be foolish to think that the US doesn't have a whole bunch of follow up contingency options waiting in the wings.

   Next up, what are the wider geopolitics of this crazy war. 

   And, by wider geopolitics, I am of course talking Russia and Iran here. I talked a lot about this last time but it's worth repeating. Russia currently has an undisclosed number of assets inside Syria. They have that Mediterranean base at Tartus which they would dearly like to hold. Losing it would be a serious blow to Russian prestige but I'm sure NATO have offered assurances that they have no designs here. The Russians have some Soviet era warships off the coast, some Spetsnaz and paratroopers in country and also an unknown number of technicians helping with the air defense systems. Has the S-300 SAM system been deployed yet? This is a huge question and we don't yet know. Some batteries could be operational and will be operated by Russian technicians. Obviously, the S-300 getting its first combat test v NATO would be popcorn overdose time but most likely the initial strike will involve cruise missiles and maybe, if the US goes exotic, some B2 stealth bombers from mainland US bases.

   How will Russia react?

   There'll be complaints at the UN and fist waving along with the Chinese. But at this stage of the 21st century everyone knows the Western modus operandi and the juggernaut that is US military power. The corporate empire cannot be deterred by conventional forces and nukes remain off the table because it's just not worth bringing on Armageddon. Yet.





   The real question here is what the NATO plan for Syria is.

   Is it perpetual chaos in the heart of the Arab world? Because if the West were truly interested in stability in Syria than the dirty little secret of this war might be that Assad would be the best option for that. Let the Arab strongman continue his authoritarian dictatorship not because it's expedient or moral or even right, but because the alternatives are far worse. Just look at Egypt in the aftermath of Mubarak as an object lesson on how things can go wrong without a bad guy on the payroll. The Arabs just don't do democracy and voting booths. In the wake of Assad's demise, what would a post war Syria look like? It would look like another Civil War but this time on bath salts with multiple factions fighting each other, Druze, Alawites, Christians, FSA, Al-Nusra Islamic radicals, Kurds, Al-Qaeda franchise elements, Hezbollah, Iranian militias, Sunni factions, ex Assad Syrian Army hold-ons all clawing each other's faces off for power. The civilian slaughter and genocide could go off the charts.

   But here's the dark side for Western war planners. Once you ditch the morality of fomenting a failed state you also by default neuter it. Its teeth are gone. Its ability to project power evaporates from its neighbor's borders. All this chaos would mean the end of Syria as a contiguous state and would remove it as a threat to Israel, Turkey and Jordan and end its alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran to the East. It would knock Russian influence out of the Middle East. Hezbollah would find itself with a far more difficult supply chain for rocketry to aim at Israel and Iran would find itself fully isolated and surely the next domino to fall.

   So now perhaps the benefits of attack emerge however tenuously. Total destabilization. Chaos. A very scary course of action surely with many unforeseeable outcomes but obviously viewed as containable from Western war planner's madcap Dr Strangelove rooms.

  In fact, examined on these terms, NATO's impending intervention in Syria starts to make some kind of strategic sense when you take in the big picture... total Western hegemony of the last easily extractable oil on the planet. Lessening reliance on tar sands and its low EROEI numbers and high costs-to-refine, nothing but sweet crude sitting just under desert sands in Iraq and Iran and the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. Syria barely has any oil but it is a linchpin state in the region. Damascus is the historic heart of Arabia. Maybe we've reached the stage where such chaos is desirable and that's a very scary place to be just 13 years into the new century. Hegemony via chaos is a risky game.

   This is a big war and it's happening live on your TV for reasons far removed from a whiff of nerve gas. If Assad takes his medicine and does not retaliate (his best move) we have the possibility of continued stalemate. The fire could all die down and be forgotten in a week or it could flare up and consume more forest. It's been a long hot summer. And the desert is dry and ripe for flames.

   If NATO are smart, they back down on this one. They already have all the chaos they need.

    Grab popcorn. And stay tuned.




    

99 comments:

  1. Ching chong donkey kong, I smell a dead man

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, great post as usual. I totally did not consider the "hegemony via chaos" angle. It makes a lot of sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No that's kind of what I've suspected too, since Iraq. Military Economic suppression of every other nation-state in the Levant save Jordan.
      It's an interesting theory.

      Delete
    2. Noam Chomsky on Hegemony via Chaos:
      "I mean it reaches to the point that the former editor of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal, was able to say with a straight face and with no reaction from anyone that the United States had to destabilize Chile under Allende ... had to destabilize the government of Chile and overthrow it and establish a dictatorship in order to bring about stability. It sounds like a contradiction but it isn't when you understand that "stability" has a meaning. It means US control. So we had to destabilize the country that was out of US control in order to bring about stability, and it's the same problem with regard to Iran. It doesn't follow orders and, therefore, it is destabilizing the regional situation."

      http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100525.htm

      Delete
    3. Chumpsky is a Jew a border guard not a truth teller

      Delete
  3. So which is it folks from the selection above, A, B, C or D?

    My gut says C.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you. It's like Christmas morning when I see a new post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My sentiments exactly. I haven't come across an analyses like this anywhere else. A million kudos to you, my friend, for your work in illuminating the truth (as best you can). Sharing this with everyone.

      Delete
  5. I think it's C and WT's analysis: Maintain the hegemony and take Syria out of the picture, eliminate Russian influence, and isolate Iran and Hezbollah, is probably the most insightful I have come across.

    Well played, WT. Well played.

    ~J

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another great post!

    Some are saying that it is A) but Assad's brother is behind the chemical attacks. Is it possible the Assad inner circle is falling apart? If so, one hand could be doing something the other hand knows nothing about.

    Sure would explain a lot but as WT said, the truth is the first casualty of war.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "He immediately offered to let UN inspectors in to examine the sites where the chemicals were allegedly used."

    This is false. He denied a chemical attack happened, then denied access, then after 5 days finally allowed access for an hour and a half instead of the full six hours requested by UN inspectors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think WT is comparing Assad's response time to Saddam's, in which case Assad's response was pretty instant.

      Delete
    2. I think WT is comparing Assad's response time to Saddam's, in which case Assad's response was pretty instant.

      Delete
  8. Fantastic as usual WT.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While your comments on letting a state fail (or actively formenting it) are true in that they neutralize foreign power projection, I don't think it's so benign as to be without threat. I think it'd give a lot of opportunity for non-state groups to pick up weapons and recruit members, and many of the worst ones are already well adapted to the chaos.

    I suppose in that case one would just hope that Syria just goes total wasteland and no longer provides weapons or bodies to any cause by extinguishing both. I feel ill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think WT would agree that creating chaos certainly doesn't foster a benign environment, it simply creates a situation that allows us to have better control over Syria's oil infrastructure. It diffuses power, removing obstacles that might otherwise be insurmountable. It certainly doesn't mean Syria will be safe or a fun place to be though.

      Delete
  10. Great write up as usual

    ReplyDelete
  11. Surely the most obvious option is that some whackjob in the syrian army used the nerve gas without command from above? Assad surely cannot be in command of every decision made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree but it also could be the rebels that is backed by NATO

      Delete
    2. Thank you, WT. Watching live this Great 21th century, from Romania, via... Blogspot.

      Anyway, somebody must win this. Too bad it won't be Syria.

      Delete
  12. Interesting to hear what you think of this. Of course, I'll have to look up more on this issue elsewhere since it's clearly a huge topic of debate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. FINALLY! Thanks, WT. I just knew you were going to write something about this.

    I pick B or C - because Assad knows himself that the Western powers drew a red line at chemical weapons and he is not dumb enough to cross it, especially when he is making progress against the FSA. For the exact reasons you just named, the US just wants him to do that, but knows that he won't. That's why they're jumping the gun on this one, not even knowing who fired those chem shells.

    He was never put in a situation THAT desperate that warranted a chem strike. The Syrian army, and let's not forget, Hezbollah (the Muhammad Ali of the region - say what you want, I admire the shit out of them) have been kicking ass recently and the opposition has been reeling from Qusayr, their internal problems with the al-Nusra front and the pending assault on Aleppo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Firstly, and at the risk of turning the comment section into a circle jerk, thank you for writing this. It is phenomenal.

    What are your thoughts on the role of shale in the grand energy game? Is it possible that the West could actually be trying to take energy supplies off the market? From a strategic perspective, chaos in the entire region means they stand to reap the benefits of high energy prices caused by the decrease in supply, while simultaneously being the biggest new supplier in town due to your now-much-more-economical shale and tar sands. Oh, and you knock out the source of supply to your biggest economic competitor (Iran to China). Sounds like a good way to maintain hegemony for at least a little while longer.

    I know your thoughts on the long term energy future of the world, and I agree. If you're the US, and you know that is the reality you are facing, why not at least try to kick off the resource war on your terms instead of waiting for a time in the future when you've already been weakened?

    Anyways, just some thoughts, thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're on the right track here.
      Pipelines are KEY in this debacle. Do a little research on the ones the U.S and Israel are trying to build and look who's in the way. Pipelines are something that concerns ALL the leading nations.

      Delete
  15. Awesome read as always.
    Thanks WT for your excellent clarity and thoughtful insights.
    Keep it up bro!

    ReplyDelete
  16. One thing you have not considered - if nerve agents are present in Syria, and Syria is destabilizing ANYWAY, it behooves the west to get involved in order to secure the nerve agents before they find their way into the hands of Iran, Hezbolah, and Al Qaeda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iran would not use nerve agents. West paints Iran as insane to justify its presence in the region, not to mention the added benefit of boosting weapon sales to Arab states. Hezbollah takes orders from Iran. And Al Qaeda is controlled/funded by Arab states.

      Delete
    2. Iran would not use nerve agents. West paints Iran as insane to justify its presence in the region, not to mention the added benefit of boosting weapon sales to Arab states. Hezbollah takes orders from Iran. And Al Qaeda is controlled/funded by Arab states.

      Delete
  17. What in the world keeps men like Assad staying where they are when they know that no matter what happens its all about them, if they stood down would this all go away??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possibly the knowledge that they'd be replaced with much worse. Likely not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

      Delete
    2. I guess the same can be asked to those supporting the terrorists creating chaos in Syria, and ofc their supporters: USA, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

      What does your own countrys defense doctrine and civil defense policies tell about when to fight and when to give up? Think about that.

      Delete
    3. LOL. "it's all about them" i can see the mass media has done it's job on you.
      It's most definitely NOT all about him (in particular). It's ANYONE who doesn't allow western influence and bullying affect their course of action.

      Delete
  18. And a few days ago the CIA admitted to doing nothing about Iraq's chemical strikes on Iran... the hypocrisy is absurd.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

    ReplyDelete
  19. Excellent article, as always.

    "modern proxy resource war is never a game of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" so there is no 'ask the audience' option"

    Beautifully put.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My applauses (imagine me clapping in front the computer).
    This is one of the most informative, well-written, humorous and yet serious articles from your blog. I must say that I've become a huge fan of yours.
    Thank you for giving insight on different conflicts aside from the typical uneducated and feverish media field.

    As I study International Relations I had a hunger for something like this. There is a serious shortage and you fill the vacuum well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. www.4thmedia.org provides in depth analysis of the situation in Syria.

    Great article War Tard!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Finally an article worthy of your status, your last few were below par.

    Another thing you should have touched on it is.

    In case Assad doesn't back down, and given the high stakes for the factions you listed(who'll loose out), these factions will join the active fight. Because if they don't they are practically gone anyway in few years. They have to make a stand now when they are strongest.

    In a decade, if isolated, they'll be ripped apart one by one.

    I can see Hezbollah joining in and even Iran just going apeshit in the gulf, i wouldn't even be surprised at this time if Russia went luke warm instead of total hot, maybe provide more high tech defensive weaponry.

    What is West gonna do?
    Russia will make the Oil market volatile and the Oil will jack up and since the Middle East would be already in shit storm, the OPEC will have trouble easing the pricing so easily.

    Russia has decent leverage in this.

    And when thigns don't move as planned NATO/US come to some agreement with Russsia and things move on to 2016 elections.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Something I haven't heard anyone talk about and I think would be extremely telling is why the target choice for the chemical attack? Who were the people in the neighborhood and why would they be targeted for chemical weapons? Where they from a faction that opposes Assad or were they neutral? Why there why at that time? Was there a large number of rebel soldiers in the area?

    I think knowing that would go a long way to telling who really carried out the chemical attack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think about the precise reason you and I don't know the answer to these important questions.
      When you find out, then you know the reason why evil is _currently_ in control in west.

      Delete
    2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

      this article does a bit of explaining.

      Delete
  24. "Because people like this one, are obvious trolls, encouraging a NUCLEAR WWII.

    In other words, one must KILL the village to PROTECT the village!
    Imagine that!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thry'll never acheive the hegemony that the dr stranglove stratagists dream of, even with iran down. So far china is reaoing the benifits iraq, and im sure even if we made iran fall they'd keep sellin to asia out of spite.

    At some point it just becomes easier to build an aqueduct out of canada an frack the shit out of our own quite abundant reserves.

    And who's worried about russia? Their military presence there is largely symbolic, and other than the fact that they tend to see through the cabal's bullshit its not like it tends to matter.

    Id chalk any stradigy in play by the west up to 60+ year old men with a 1980's memtality thinking the world is not how it is and vastly over estimating the benifits of the hegemony they'll never acheive. Also greedy enablers, let us never forget our ever greedy war enablers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fantastic blog mate.

    Any thoughts on the House of Commons vote?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Britain is “just a small island … no one pays any attention to them”!

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10290243/Russia-mocks-Britain-the-little-island.html

      :D

      Delete
  27. My take on this is, I've got no fucking time for any of them, I think they're all the scum of the Earth. What kind of bastard stands over a nerve gassed dog and grovels to their god? What kind of God lets loose weapons like that? FUCK THOSE GUYS AND FUCK THEIR GOD. Our Parliament did the right thing for once: We should NEVER be the Air Force of these deranged fuckwits and their Holy Joe complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing keeping the western economy and civilization afloat is the mid east and the resources that have been stolen from there. Wake up

      Delete
    2. ding ding ding.

      Delete
    3. ding ding ding.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, yeah - it's also destroying our planet with climate change.

      Every five minutes it's "the Evil West this, the Evil West that, the Evil West the other." Everythign and anything is the fault of the Evil West. Now the bastards actually want us to bomb their enemies for them? Ask Allah to do it for you...

      Delete
  28. Nuke them all (or blow their chem dumps and watch the clouds waft over them) and let Allah sort them out. The only thing worse than a fanatical Islamic are civil rights spouting fanatical Islamics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Syria has already been fragmented into four states: Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and 'Syria', not to mention the bit Turkey took, plus I guess you could count the occupied territories as a fifth. Now we get Alawite, Kurdish and Sunni mini states. Don't forget Iraq while still nominally a state is effectively three mini states as well: Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish. The next logical step would be to break up Iran in to more manageable chunks of dirt.

    Divide and conquer: The Romans did it, the British in many ways mastered it and the Americans are now carrying the torch.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A friend of mine posted your piece from late June. I liked the writing style and how informative it was so I decided to read your latest. Enjoyed this as well. However, I did take issue with one thing and would like some clarification. Here's the part I took issue with:

    "Even the mainstream media are asking these questions now but it is testimony to our times that the precedent for wars without Congressional approval, without UN approval, wars that are illegal under international law; all can happen anyway because of the precedents set in Iraq 2003."

    When you wrote this, are you suggesting that the conflict with Iraq was not authorized by congress or the U.N.? Because it was authorized by congress and Security Council Resolution 1441 was pretty damned clear about what needed to happen even if the Chinese and Russians balked at finally having to enforce it. Perhaps you meant Libya and a different year?

    ReplyDelete
  31. thats an awesome piece of read.. Great man..
    The statement is a hard truth and very tough -- "truth is the first casualty in any war"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey Wartard, does someone at the Pentagon read your blog?

    It looks like the Obama people have taken your advice and it seems there is a possible deal with Russia and Assad on the table regarding the chemweps.

    Nice call!

    ReplyDelete
  33. So WT, has the UN report or the Russian documents changed your opinion on the who the actual perpetrators are?
    I was listening to an interview with Paul Danahar, and his argument was that if it wasn't Assad's forces, then the international community would be very worried if the rebels hands or al-Qaida had access to chemical weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ok WT, here's an interesting topic for you http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

    ReplyDelete
  35. Replies
    1. He said he was working on something on his twitter account, but that was some time ago.
      I've been hanging for his next article.

      Delete
  36. I want another article. Hell, I'd buy a book

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear ya man, I've been checking every day, his twitter said there was one coming out on the 6th, but I'm guessing he's a little busy.

      Delete
  37. Hey Wartard,

    I know its not a war man, at least not yet... but you think you can do a piece on the Ukraine mess?

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://souloftheeast.org/2014/02/01/blood-on-the-maidan/

    what do you make of this?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey WT, great post as always. Based on all these facts, I kinda see the same happening now in Ukraine minus the chemical mess for now. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Please comment on Ukraine/Venezuela WT!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Crimea - could get hot soon

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hooting for the Ukraine as well... SpecOps with no mags in weapons capturing airports, helicopter fleets crossing borders, Tartars, Russians, Ukrainians... this is prime WT material!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thoughts exactly!! WT where are you???

      Delete
  43. Holy fuck Wartard. WW3 is on order. You got to release something before we all start crawling the wastes for water.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think he drowned in Popcorn!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I guess this proves that this blog is truly dead. If he doesn't comment on this he won't comment on anything anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate to say it, but I think you're right. I've been checking in here the last day or two waiting for WT's take.

      Delete
  46. Oh WarTard, a penny for your thoughts... (on the Ukraine).

    ReplyDelete
  47. New post on Ukraine coming this week... stay tuned folks ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please WT, I come here daily waiting for an update, we know you're busy, but we really look forward to your posts.

      Delete
    2. HE'S ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Praise be the gods!

      On a more serious note, is WWIII on the cards like mainstream media is telling me?

      We need you're truth WT. Every time serious shit happens in the world, your blog is the first place I go.

      Delete
    3. just in time for my legendary water cooler conversations on the real shit.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  48. My spidey senses are tingling!

    ReplyDelete
  49. i've got a semi

    ReplyDelete
  50. Shibby

    -The Panther

    ReplyDelete
  51. The new post on Crimea is large and almost done.

    Expect it Monday the 10th.

    Thank you all for the interest and support :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I have one reason to survive the weekend, it's this.

      Delete
    2. Fuck yeah! Been waiting for Wartards perspective for months!!

      Delete
    3. What's in the box? WHAT'S IN THE BOX?

      Delete
    4. clearly men of international intrigue have dealt with our man wartard. goodspeed young man. you will be avenged!

      Delete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Cant. Wait. Any. Longer.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Please tard don't leave us hanging! that's torture!!!

    ReplyDelete
  55. He´s probably having to update this new post on Crimea daily, the rate of new developments is overwhelming!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sorry for the delay guys. I had unexpected shit happen over the weekend. The article is a few paragraphs short of done. I'll finish it tonight ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I really appreciate all the work and effort you put into this. You know there's a reddit devoted to you ^^ ?

      Delete