The Pope is Correct: There is NO 'Eternal' Hell

Pope To World: Hell Does Exist

March 30, 20183:03 PM ET Vanessa Romo

Alessandra Benedetti /Corbis/Getty Images

Things got a little heated at the Vatican this week when an Italian journalist reported that Pope Francis denied the existence of hell.
Apparently, the fiery 93-year-old avowed atheist reporter, Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica, set the social media world aflame after writing in Italian that when asked about the fate of "bad souls," the pontiff responded, "Hell does not exist."
The pope continued, according to Scalfari, saying (emphasis ours), "The disappearance of sinful souls exists."
The statements spurred Catholics and other believers to grab their virtual pitchforks to express their fury, which the Vatican has since tried to cool.
The Vatican adamantly rejected Scalfari's characterization of the conversation, which it insisted was not an official interview but rather a "private meeting."
On Friday — Good Friday — the Vatican issued a statement saying:

"What is reported by the author in today's article is the fruit of his reconstruction, in which the precise words uttered by the Pope are not cited. No quotations in the aforementioned article, then, should be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father."

And an article by the Catholic News Service said Scalfari has admitted "on more than one occasion" that he doesn't take notes or record his conversations with the pope. In other words, he prefers to take, let's say, a memoirist approach to his reporting. He relies largely on memory and recollection, as opposed to documentation.

The news outlet also reminded readers that this is a favored subject of Scalfari's. It reported the journalist wrote a similar article in 2014, so this is a ... resurrection, of sorts.
The news service wrote:

"According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 'immediately after death, the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." '
" 'The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs,' the catechism says."

As a final bit of proof that Pope Francis truly holds the belief that hell is real, the religious news outlet offered this bit of fire-and-brimstone bit of advice: "Convert, there is still time for not ending up in hell. It is what is waiting for you if you continue on this path."
Easter — the day Christians celebrate Jesus' Resurrection — is on Sunday.

Is World War 3 Inevitable? (Revelation 16)

World War 3 Inevitable? Cold War 2 May Focus On Arctic Oil, Not A Russian Nuclear War

 

Patrick Frye

 

Predictions for 2015 have already become quite dreary, with some experts declaring that World War 3 is inevitable even if the Ukraine war, Vladimir Putin, and Russian nuclear weapons are not included as part of the equation. Although Cold War 2 does seem to have started already, it’s hoped that an economic war, and not nuclear war, will be the only fallout.

In a related report by the Inquisitr, Ron Paul believes that a “reckless” Congress has essentially declared war on Vladimir Putin and Russia based upon the recently passed U.S. House Resolution 758. The U.S. Senate followed up by passing the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which authorizes President Obama to give Ukraine lethal aid at a cost of $350 million over three years. Before this legislation was even passed, government-funded Russian media was warning that giving lethal aid to Ukraine could lead to World War 3 if President Obama acts on it. As of this publishing, President Obama has not made a decision on enacting the Ukraine Freedom Act, although the clock is ticking since the bill gave the President 60 days for his administration to draw up documents describing how it would be enacted.

Back in April, British journalist Edward Lucas claimed the events in Ukraine may have been the trigger point for World War 3.

“We are soon to face a bleak choice. We can chose to surrender any responsibility we have to protect Ukraine and the Baltic states — almost certainly Putin’s next target — from further Russian incursion. Or we can mount a last-ditch attempt to deter Russia from furthering its imperial ambitions. If we do choose to resist Putin, we will risk a terrifying military escalation, which I do not think it an exaggeration to say could bring us to the brink of nuclear war. Putin knows that. And he believes we will choose surrender… If the West does stand up to ­Russia, Putin will put its nuclear forces on alert, all the while decrying our ‘aggressive behavior.’”

Noam Chomsky also believes that Russian nuclear weapons in Europe could be the next step toward nuclear war.

“There have been many cases, not that serious, but pretty close, where human intervention with a few-minutes choice has prevented a nuclear war… It may not be a high probability each time, but when you play a game like that, with low probability risks of disaster over and over again, you’re going to lose. And now, especially in the crisis over Ukraine, and so-called missile-defense systems near the borders of Russia, it’s a threatening situation.”

Chomsky made this quote before the U.S. Pentagon claimed it was considering deploying U.S. nuclear cruise missiles to Europe. Although nothing has been decided, if President Obama has the U.S. military take this step then events may quickly escalate out of control in 2015.
Albert Einstein also once made an interesting quote that pertains to the frightening possibility of a Russian nuclear war.

“I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Despite all the posturing over Russia’s nuclear weapons, Vladimir Putin insists the world has nothing to fear from Russia, instead saying that the greatest threat to world peace is the Islamic State due to money provided by oil.

“The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.”

In 2014, Putin has had a history of both downplaying and focusing on the threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons. For example, Putin once ordered a nuclear weapons ICBM test in response to Obama speaking publicly against Russia, and Moscow’s state TV also claimed their nuclear weapons could reduce the United States to “radioactive ash.”

Because of this history, Paul Dibb, an intelligence chief during the Cold War and former head of strategy at the Australian Defense Department, claims that Putin’s KGB background is reason enough to not trust the Russian leader.

“He’s KGB trained. He’s a former KGB colonel. He’s not going to blink. He’s a man trained in the perfect lie.”

Herbert E. Meyer, a former Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council under the Reagan administration, wrote that “Putin is a serious threat to world peace” and suggested that President Obama should solve the “Putin problem” with an assassination plot.

“If Putin is too too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us… For instance, if the next time Putin’s flying back to Moscow from yet another visit with his good friends in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran, his airplane gets blasted out of the sky by some murky para-military group that somehow, inexplicably, got its hands on a surface-to-air missile.”

It doesn’t take a paragraph of 2015 predictions to realize that scenario would likely trigger World War 3 if the plot was discovered.

But Pope Francis famously claimed earlier this year that World War 3 had already started, although not in the fashion that everyone expected. It’s possible the world’s superpowers may choose to wage international war using economics and a series of proxy wars where countries take sides. Economists believe these sanctions by the European Union and the United States could cost Russia $100 to $200 billion a year and already Russia’s economy is beginning to implode.

Although the world is largely focused on the Ukraine war, Vladimir Putin recently deployed Russian troops in order to make a claim on Arctic oil and has already officially filed documents to make claim of the waters and land. But just this week, Denmark formally claimed the North Pole as their own and Russia has already run an invasion simulation of Denmark. Such an event would trigger World War 3 since Denmark is a NATO member, and an “attack on one is an attack on all.”

The reason that Vladimir Putin may be willing to risk World War 3 over Arctic oil is because some experts believe that usable world oil reserves will be gone by 2060. Although Lockheed Martin’s fusion reactor sounds like an interesting solution to the oil problem, oil will still be the focus for years to come. Some experts have described the disputed Arctic region as a second Middle East, since oil and gas reserves are thought to represent between 17 and 30 percent of the global total.

The importance of oil cannot be overstated since the recent downfall of the Russian ruble is said to not only be linked to sanctions over the Ukraine crisis, but also the falling price of crude oil. When it comes to 2015 predictions, the good news is that Russia’s economic woes is claimed to be a reason that Vladimir Putin cannot afford to take a strong stand with the Ukrainian separatists, and it may even curtail their plans to upgrade the Russian nuclear arsenal (which recently beat the U.S. nuclear weapons in numbers, if not technology).

Unfortunately, the worst of the 2015 predictions claim that economic warfare may set the foundation for declaring World War 3 regardless of the issue that is at stake. Billionaire hedge fund manager Kyle Bass writes that basic economic cycles will be the stepping stones leading toward World War 3.

“Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.”

Investment adviser Larry Edelson once wrote an email describing what could trigger World War 3.

“Since the 1980s, I’ve been studying the so-called ‘cycles of war’ — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war… And based on what I’m seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge.”

Edelson was not making any World War 3 2015 predictions when he wrote this paragraph. Instead, this email was a prediction made before 2013, way before the Ukraine crisis ever started. But others have made similar statements, declaring that the United States will start war over the economy.

For example, investment funds manager Martin Armstrong wrote, “Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the economic decline that is coming.” Recently, an article by the Centre for Research on Globalisation claimed,”Washington isn’t out to help the Ukrainian people; it’s solely using Ukraine as a launching-pad for WW III against Russia.”

The Oxford University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics notes that an international war can be traced back into time and is generally a struggle over limited resources.

“In his classic, A Study of War, Wright (1942) devotes a chapter to the relationship between war and resources. Another classic reference, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Richardson (1960), extensively discusses economic causes of war, including the control of ‘sources of essential commodities.’… In Resource Wars (2001), Klare argues that following the end of the Cold War, control of valuable natural resources has become increasingly important, and these resources will become a primary motivation for wars in the future.”

In response to U.S. sanctions, China and Russia have begun to align themselves more closely. Russian nuclear submarines are being sold to China and both countries agreed to swap $25 billion in Chinese yuan for Russian rubles over three years. They also created economic treaties to benefit both countries. There’s also talk of creating a $250 billion high speed rail project that would connect Moscow to Beijing, which would allow China to greatly lower the cost of trade with Europe. China will also benefit from contracts to purchase military hardware like the S-400 missile systems and Su-35 fighter jets.

The U.S. also stands to lose something if the Russian ruble tumbles and affects world markets. Although Russia is currently suffering, 2015 predictions for the U.S. economy still have the federal deficit projected to be around half a trillion dollars next year. Currently at over $18 trillion, the U.S. gross public debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is over 100 percent, and economists have theorized that any country which reaches this threshold may eventually face severe repercussions. Experts have warned that if the US federal debt gets high enough, the interest payments alone could outpace defense spending and require the US government to both decrease spending and increase taxes dramatically. Russia, on the other hand, only as about $234 billion in debt, although China is a little over $5.1 trillion.

Once again, some 2015 predictions claim oil may play a large role in determining the outcome of Cold War 2. The United States is now the world’s largest oil exporter due to the fracking of shale oil. If World War 3 were to occur, the U.S. oil reserves are said to be at record high levels. A recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration claims the “U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate increased for the fifth year in a row in 2013, and exceeded 36 billion barrels for the first time since 1975.”

In the end, it’s hoped these predictions for 2015 may fail to come to pass. But if history is any example, then it’s best to be prepared for the worst. What do you think?

North Korea Prepares for WW3

WW3 News: North Korea Readies Nuclear Warheads

Gurmeet Singh Pandher

Is North Korea preparing to unleash WW3 with its President, Kim Jong Un, urging the military to ready its nuclear arsenal to be fired at its enemies amid tougher sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council?

The North Korean leader said the country’s “nuclear warheads need to be ready for use at any time,” in response to the enemies that were threatening the country’s survival, the North Korean state news agency KCNA reported.

“Under the extreme situation that the U.S. Imperialist is misusing its military influence and is pressuring other countries and people to start war and catastrophe, the only way for our people to protect sovereignty and rights to live is to strengthen the quality and quantity of nuclear power and realize the balance of power,” Kim was quoted as saying.

He was speaking at a military exercise on Thursday, when the country had test-fired “short-range projectiles” of a new multiple launch rocket system.

On Thursday, Pyongyang launched six projectiles that flew 60 to 90 miles off the east coast of the Korean Peninsula.

South Korean defense officials said that the North had been testing the new multiple-rocket launcher with a range far enough to strike major American and South Korean military bases, including those in the Osan-Pyeongtaek hub 62 miles south of Seoul.

Apart from its nuclear weapons, North Korea’s multiple-rocket launchers and artillery pieces are its most-feared weapons in the South. The North is estimated to have 13,000 of them clustered on the inter-Korean border, 28 miles north of Seoul.

North Korea appeared to flexing its muscles in the wake of the toughest sanctions yet brought by the UN resolution aiming to cripple the economic factors that fuel Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The flared up tensions could result in a WW3 given the United States’s attempt to move against the North wouldn’t be taken lightly by the communist nations. China, the North’s only ally could also end up in a confrontation with NATO and its allies on the Korean crisis since it wouldn’t like to see a US invasion of the country. Russia too would likely back China against the US and the thermo-nuclear war will the possible outcome of these developments.

Meanwhile, the move by South Korea to deploy an advanced missile defense system could further escalate the tensions in the fragile Korean peninsula. Representatives of the South Korean and American armed forces on a joint task force met last Friday in Seoul to discuss the possible deployment of the US missile system called Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD.
The move, however, will likely escalate tensions with the Chinese and Russians since they have repeatedly warned the South against hoisting the United States missile system. The missile will threaten the sovereignty of Beijing and could trigger a war similar to the Cuban crisis faced by Americans in the Cold war era.

World War 3 Will Begin In the Middle East (Revelation 16)

World War 3 Could Very Easily Turn Into The Very First Nuclear War In The Middle East

By Michael Snyder, on February 21st, 2016

Saudi Arabia already has nukes, Iran probably does, and the Russians are one of the two great nuclear powers on the entire planet. So if Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni allies do decide to conduct a full-blown ground invasion of Syria, could someone ultimately decide to use nuclear weapons when their backs get pushed up against a wall? As you read this article, there are thousands of military vehicles and hundreds of thousands of troops massed along the southern border of Turkey and the northern border of Saudi Arabia. If the command is given and those forces start streaming toward Damascus, it is inevitable that the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah and the Russians would fight back. It would literally be the start of World War 3, and the Saudis and the Turks are trying very hard to convince the United States to be involved. But the truth is that we don’t want any part of this conflict, because it could very easily become the very first nuclear war in the history of the Middle East.

Perhaps you didn’t know that the Saudis already have nukes. Of course the official position is that they don’t, but it is a fact that they were the ones that funded the development of Pakistan’s nuclear program. It is an open secret that the Saudis have the bomb, but nobody is really supposed to talk about it.

That is why it was so alarming what Saudi political analyst Dahham Al-‘Anzi told RT just recently…
Earlier this week a Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arab network the kingdom has a nuclear weapon.
Dahham Al-‘Anzi made the claim while saying Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to “minimize the Iranian threat in the Levant and Syria.”

Although Saudi Arabia has officially denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has publicly stated it opposes nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it has funded a military nuclear program and received scientific assistance from the United States and Pakistan.

If the fur started flying in Syria and Russia and Iran decided to start bombing Saudi airbases, would Saudi Arabia resort to using their nukes?

Let’s hope not.

In the event of a massive ground invasion by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies, it is actually more likely that Russia may decide to be the first one to use nukes. An invasion force of hundreds of thousands of troops would vastly outnumber the relatively small Russian force that is already inside Syria, and so the Russians may feel that the only way that they can keep the Sunni powers out of Damascus is to use tactical nukes.

Russia has more tactical nukes that anyone else in the world by far, and there are some reports that indicate that Russia may be prepared to use them in Syria. For example, former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry, the author of America’s Stolen Narrative, says that a source has told him that the Russians have already warned Turkey that this could potentially happen…

If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria.

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Given Erdogan’s megalomania or mental instability and the aggressiveness and inexperience of Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman (defense minister and son of King Salman), the only person who probably can stop a Turkish-Saudi invasion is President Obama. But I’m told that he has been unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention, though he has sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion.

Are you starting to understand how serious this is?

With all of the talk of a potential invasion in recent days, the Russians are on high alert and are rapidly preparing for a direct conflict with both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The following comes from Infowars…

Still, the Russians are taking no chances and they have put all their forces into high alert. They have very publicly dispatched a Tu-214r – her most advanced ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft. You can think of the Tu-214R as an “AWACS for the ground”, the kind of aircraft you use to monitor a major ground battle (the regular Russian A-50Ms are already monitoring the Syrian airspace). In southern Russia, the Aerospace forces have organized large-scale exercises involving a large number of aircraft which would be used in a war against Turkey: SU-34s. The Airborne Forces are ready. The naval task forces off the Syrian coast is being augmented. The delivery of weapons has accelerated. The bottom line is simple and obvious: the Russians are not making any threats – they are preparing for war. In fact, by now they are ready.

In addition, it is important to remember that it is quite likely that the Iranians have nuclear weapons as well.

Of course the U.S. government and the Iranian government both insist that Iran does not have nukes, but many of those in the know insist otherwise.

For instance, you may want to consider what retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney are saying. The following comes from an article that was authored by Jerome Corsi of WND…

In a joint statement, Vallely and Haney say an accumulation of available evidence shows a coalition of Russia, China and North Korea have assisted Iran since 1979 in achieving a nuclear weapon, despite sanctions, under the guise of a domestic nuclear energy program.

Vallely explained to WND that he and Haney have taken a systematic approach to evaluating each component needed to deliver a nuclear weapon, from the development and testing of a ballistic missile system, to the design of a nuclear weapons warhead, to the development of the weapons-grade uranium needed to produce a bomb.

“To come to our conclusion that Iran is a nuclear weapons power right now, we supplemented publicly available research, plus information from intelligence sources, including Iranian resistance groups such as the National Council of Resistance of IRAN, NCRI,” Vallely explained.

I happen to agree with Vallely and Haney. I cannot prove it, but all of the intel that I have received indicates that Iran already has nukes.

Hopefully I will not be proven accurate any time soon.

It had been hoped that a cease-fire could be negotiated that would at least temporarily defuse tensions in Syria. Unfortunately, it does not look like the shooting is going to stop, and this is going to put immense pressure on both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to do something to rescue the radical Sunni militants that are on the verge of defeat. The Saudis, the Turks and their allies have poured enormous amounts of money and resources into this war over the past five years, and now they are faced with the choice of either accepting defeat or directly intervening in this conflict themselves.

But in order to conduct a full-fledged ground invasion, they are going to need justification for doing so. There are some that are suggesting that we could soon see a false flag attack that would provide that justification, so that is something to watch out for.

I can’t remember a time when our planet has been so close to World War 3 potentially beginning.
And if it does break out, I believe that it is quite likely that nuclear weapons will be used.

Saudi Wahabists Threatening World War III

 

Saudi Arabia’s Dictator Demands Regime-Change in Syria — Otherwise WW III

Feb 20, 2016

Eric Zuesse

As has been recently reported, many experts on international relations are saying that the danger of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia is greater now than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 — in other words: greater than ever before in history. But it has just ratcheted a bit higher still:

The owner of Saudi Arabia, King Salman al-Saud, speaking through his spokesperson and chosen Foreign Minister, in an interview that was published on February 19th in Germany’s magazine Spiegel, says that he demands the resignation or else the overthrow of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with both Iran and Russia. Polls of the Syrian public, by Western polling firms, consistently show Assad to be overwhelmingly approved by the Syrian people to be the leader of Syria, and show that Syrians blame the United States for causing ISIS, which is disapproved by 76% of Syrians. The other named jihadist groups, such as al-Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria, received similarly low approval-ratings from the Syrian public. In stark contrast, a poll of Saudi Arabians shows that 92% of them approve of ISIS. But the United States is allied with the fundamentalist-Islamic dictatorship Saudi Arabia, against the separation-of-church-and-state democracy of Russia. So too is America’s fellow-NATO-member Turkey allied with the fundamentalist Muslims, and they’re publicly threatening to invade Syria (another nation that has strict separation of church-and-state) with ground troops. They’re backed by planes that were supplied to the Sauds by the United States. 

Robert Parry reported on February 18th, “A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

The Saudi Foreign Minister also says that his country is waiting for U.S. President Barack Obama to take the lead in forcing Assad to resign, because, he says, otherwise Assad will necessarily be overthrown in a war, and there is a possibility that World War III could result, though he also says, “I don’t think World War III is going to happen in Syria.” He even says that to talk about “the danger of World War III … is an over-dramatization,” because he expects America to lead in the overthrow of Assad. He’s waiting for Obama’s decison.

Spiegel’s  interviewer asked some challenging follow-up questions, such as, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida.” To that one, he answered, “Yes, but that’s not us. We don’t tolerate terrorism.”

In the UAE, the TV network of Dubai telecast on 22 January 2016 an interview with the former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca Saudi Arabia, a high authority on the Sauds’ faith, which is likewise the faith of the six royal families of UAE, and this interview was telecast in Arabic, so the expectation was naturally to be speaking to the locals instead of to foreigners. However, a youtube on January 27th included subscripts in English, and is headlined “Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we do.” He states there that the only difference between ISIS and their faith is that (1:55-) “We follow the same thought but apply it in a refined way,” because Saudis believe that (1:12-) “if we execute them [people] in a way that does not show us in a bad way, then that’s fine,” whereas ISIS’s way is so (1:09-) “brutal that it ruins our image in front of the world.” But that’s just the Saudi faith as it’s represented by the ‘holy men.’ What about the royals themselves? 

Here is the evidence on this matter, which Spiegel’s interviewer failed even to bring up: The individual who had been the bookkeeper, accountant, and bagman for Al Qaeda, and who personally collected (in cash) each one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda, from which donations the “salaries” (as he referred to them) of each one of the terrorists and terrorists-in-training were being paid, testified under oath in an American court case, saying that almost all of that money came from Saudi Arabia’s royal family, from their Princes, including from the one — Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud — who was, at the very time of 9/11, serving in the United States, as the Saudi Ambassador. Bandar subsequently became the chief of Saudi intelligence. The Saudi King appointed a man like that — a big donor to Al Qaeda — to be his Kingdom’s chief of intelligence. The current King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd al-Saud, was mentioned by that bagman as having been among the people to whom Osama bin Laden had him deliver letters to at the time when the Saud family were planning whom to select to become the next King; Al Qaeda’s bagman said that he had delivered Osama’s letters to “Abdullah, Fahd, okay, Salman, Waleed bin Talal, Bandar, Turki of course, and Shaykh — Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthaimeen, Shaykh Shehri, and Shaykh Hammoud al-Uqlaa, but Shaykh Osama told me that the — the letter for the — for — for the ulema [the religious leaders] I could give it — give it to Turki.” (I.e.: Turki was the contact-man with the religious scholars.)

Here was a follow-up question from the transcript, and the bagman’s answer to it:

Q Do you have any understanding why in that context Osama bin Laden would have been sending letters to both members of the royal family and the senior ulema [the scholars]?

A: My understanding from talking with people like Abu Basir al-Wahishi who become the — the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, who I used to be close to, okay, or Halad or Shaykh Abu Hasan [but is that the same person?], Shayk Mujahideen, Shaykh Aman, and Shaykh Abul Sef — my understanding that they — they want to know who they should support.

The counsel or advice from Osama bin Laden was respected by the members of the Saudi royal family, in order to help them to determine which one of them should become the next King. Presumably, Osama’s advice was necessary in order for them to learn which ones of themselves could become appointed to lead as King without sparking attacks by Al Qaeda and by the clergy (whose faith they spread) against the Saud family, and which ones would be unacceptable to Al Qaeda and to the clergy. Al Qaeda were, in a sense, the clergy’s enforcers, and they could do this at home in Saudi Arabia. This was the implicit threat: that they had to appoint someone who was in-synch with the jihadist goals, spreading the faith, the goal of the Wahhabist (which is the Saudi branch of Salafism) clerics. (Salafism/Wahhabism is jihadist by its very founding, and is above all dedicated to exterminating Shiites in order to unify global Islam behind the jihadist cause, religious conquest for purified Sunni faith, the Caliphate.)

Furthermore: When Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State, one of the first things she did was to send, to her Ambassadors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, instructions for them to tell their royals to make sure that they would no longer allow those donations to continue; and she even said: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” She didn’t name names, but they already knew the names. That was eight years after 9/11, in 2009, and there’s no reason to think that the situation has changed since, just as there indeed had been no change after the 9/11 attacks and the donations instead continued into at least 2009.

A truthful answer from the Saudi Foreign Minister, to the question, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida,” would have been: “We don’t support jihad that threatens our own regime, like ISIS does by saying that we Sauds aren’t descended from the Prophet [Mohammed] and that their leader al-Baghdadi is and so he should rule the world and we shouldn’t, and that we therefore aren’t qualified even to run Saudi Arabia, and to serve as custodians over Mecca and Medina, on that basis.” But, he didn’t give that honest answer.

The Saudi Foreign Minister went on to tell Spiegel, “We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria [which the United States supplies to the Sauds] is going to change the balance of power on the ground.” He believes this because it will enable the overthrow-Assad forces on the ground to shoot down Russian jets. He supports jihadist groups, but only the ones that acknowledge the Sauds’ authority.

On February 20th, Almasdar News headlined “Turkey says Obama shares Syria concerns with Erdogan, affirms support,” and reported that, “Turkey’s presidency said U.S. President Barack Obama had shared his concerns over the Syrian conflict and promised his support on Friday, hours after a tense exchange between the two NATO allies over the role of Kurdish militants. In a phone conversation that lasted one hour and 20 minutes, Ankara said Obama had told his counterpart President Tayyip Erdogan that Turkey had a right to self-defense.” These “tensions” resulted from Obama’s urging Turkey to “show reciprocal restraint.”

In other words: Turkey is a member of NATO and it will therefore be backed by fellow-NATO-member U.S. in any war against Russia, but Turkey should use “restraint.” The issue there was the use by U.S.-backed Kurds in Syria, of U.S. weapons which those Kurds were firing against the jihadists who are trying to take over Syria. The pro-jihadist Erdogan wants to send his ground-forces into Syria to kill those Kurds, but those Kurds are allied now with both the United States and Russia, and so Erdogan has been holding off. The possibility exists that if the Syrian conflict can be ended without having sparked a nuclear war, then Syria will become a federal republic, and the Kurdish region in its easternmost corner will become a largely autonomous state within the Syrian federal union. That outcome is unacceptable to Erdogan, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has tentatively agreed with Russia that it needs to be and remain open.

The Saudi Foreign Minister told Spiegel, “It is important that Bashar leaves in the beginning, not at the end of the process.” In other words, King Saud agrees with Hillary Clinton that Assad must be forced out of power while, and not after, the battles to defeat ISIS are going on. They demand their own victory, before any political process can begin in Syria. (As the Sauds see Assad, he’s not only a secularist, but he’s a Shiite, and therefore should die and be replaced by a fundamentalist Sunni like themselves.)

Whether or not to continue America’s war against Russia, which has continued even after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991 with a ceaseless expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders, is the biggest issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton and the Establishment Republicans demanding its continuation, and with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump saying that there’s no sound reason for continuing it.

On February 18th, Stephen Kinzer had an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled, “The media are misleading the public on Syria,” and he wrote:

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but … we hear little about it.

The first reader-comment to it was: 

Ozark02/18/16 02:08 PM

When did you join the payroll of the Kremlin and Teheran, Mr. Kinzer?

The first reply to that was:

tsynchronous02/18/16 02:13 PM

Sadly he is on the payroll of a foundation funded by IBM — even though he thinks capitalism and the USA is evil.

A subsequent response to it was:

Miker602/19/16 05:19 AM

And notice that Stephen Kinzer completely leaves out Barack Obama’s famous “RED LINE” proclamation for Bashir Assad, and why did he completely back out of it?

That alone is enough to Stephen Kinzer to be the one who is misleading the public on Syria.

Actually, the comment by Miker602 was further evidence that Kinzer’s op-ed is true. In fact, that sarin gas attack was carried out by al-Nusra, which had been supplied the sarin from the Benghazi Libya U.S. Consulate, which was actually a CIA operation and worked with the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, plus the Thanis who own Qatar, plus Erdogan who aims to re-establish the Ottoman Empire, and it was definitely not done by the forces of Bashar al-Assad. In other words: Obama was behind it, but Assad was not, and Obama (and ‘our’ ‘allies’) were doing it in order to blame it on Assad so as to have an excuse for invading. But how much is this fact being reported in the U.S., or in the ‘news’ media of its allies?

Or, how much is the fact being reported that, other than the United States leadership, many if not most of the other Western countries are saying that in the event of an invasion of Syria by Turkey, it will not have their backing: According to Russia’s Sputnik News on February 20th, Luxembourg and Germany have already said no to participating in any such invasion. It seems that U.S. President Obama is trying to get other allies to support and participate in invading Syria, but hasn’t yet had any takers, except for the terrorist-supporting nations, only one of which (Turkey) is even in NATO at all. (Perhaps if he can get other NATO members to join, then he’ll call a halt to John Kerry’s negotiations with Russia. War would presumably commence shortly afterward.)

The big problem — which virtually no one in the West’s ’news’ media talks about — is that NATO didn’t end when the Warsaw Pact did, but instead became a U.S.-run military club against the post-Soviet, non-communist, democratic nation of Russia.

Ending the corruption that’s behind all this will take forever. But something else is behind it that can and should be done more immediately.

End NATO Now. It has become urgent.

Pentagon Is Preparing For World War 3 (Revelation 15)

Pentagon budget: A blueprint for World War III

4 February 2016

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s speech Tuesday previewing the Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2017 spelled out Washington’s advanced preparations for military confrontations with the world’s second- and third-largest nuclear powers, Russia and China.
Delivered to the Economic Club of Washington, DC, an appreciative audience whose sponsors include the major arms manufacturers Boeing and Northrop Grumman as well as financial giants like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, the defense secretary’s speech presented an unabashed declaration of Washington’s intentions to assert its hegemony over the world’s markets and resources by whatever means necessary, up to and including a nuclear holocaust.
The presentation made by Carter, a longtime technocrat of America’s military industrial complex, provides a powerful vindication of the warnings made by the International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site that the deepening crisis of US and global capitalism is posing a real and growing danger of a Third World War.
The biggest increase proposed in the Pentagon budget is the quadrupling of funding for the US military buildup against Russia in Europe—projected to rise from $800 million to $3.4 billion. In addition to the 65,000 troops Washington already garrisons on the European continent, the funding increase will pay for the “heel to toe” rotation of full armored combat brigades into the former Baltic republics, on Russia’s doorstep, as well as other eastern European countries.
This proposal represents a flagrant and provocative violation of the agreements reached with Moscow in the wake of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union not to station large numbers of NATO troops on Russia’s borders.
In addition, large quantities of military hardware, including tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles and other weaponry, are to be stockpiled in close striking distance to Russia to allow for the speedy intervention of additional US combat brigades from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to Poland Bulgaria and Romania.
President Barack Obama issued a statement Tuesday declaring that the 400 percent increase in funding to encircle Russia “will enable the United States to strengthen our robust military posture in Europe and improve our ability to uphold our Article 5 commitments to NATO members.” By invoking Article 5, which requires NATO to militarily defend any member against attack, Obama was reiterating the vow he made in 2014 that the US would put “boots on the ground” to defend the Baltic republics, thereby making their right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regimes the trip wire for a war that would have incalculable consequences.
The other major focus of Carter’s speech and of the proposed budget itself is the buildup of US military pressure against China under the banner of the “pivot to Asia,” with particular emphasis on the modernization of the US war fleet for confrontations in the South China Sea.
Carter did not mince words about Washington objectives, which are to use military force to maintain US hegemony in Asia and quell any threat to its dominant position from the rising economic power of China, subordinating China to US economic and strategic interests and reducing it to a semi-colony of US imperialism.
The US, the defense secretary said, would act to “maintain the stability in the region that we have underwritten for 70 years,” warning China that “to disrupt the security environment where half of humanity lives and half of humanity’s economic behavior is not a good idea.”
Washington, he continued, was carrying out its military buildup to be able “to impose unacceptable costs on an advanced aggressor that will either dissuade them from taking provocative action or make them deeply regret it if they do.”
Employing the language of total war, Carter added, “In this context, Russia and China are our most stressing competitors.”
All of these proposals to escalate military confrontations that lead in the direction of global catastrophe are being made without even the semblance of a public debate, never mind the support of the American people, who have repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to militarism and war. The drive toward World War III is unfolding largely behind the backs of the public, with the corporate media and the two major parties showing no interest whatsoever in making the chilling implications of the Pentagon’s preparations known to the population.
As for Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president, his role as a rubber stamp for the US military and intelligence apparatus was briefly noted in Carter’s remarks Tuesday. Asked whether there would be a further increase in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq and Syria—where funding for military operations is also being increased by 50 percent to $7.5 billion—he responded in the affirmative, adding, “Every time the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I have asked the president for more capability to do that, he said yes, and I expect that will continue.”
The massive spending on war preparations is to be paid for through ever more draconian attacks on the living standards, jobs and social conditions of the broad masses of working people. The extent of the diversion of social resources to militarism can be seen in the Pentagon’s proposal to increase its spending on research and development for the production of newer and more deadly weapons to nearly $72 billion. This amount alone exceeds the entire US federal budget for education in 2015, never mind the trillions more that are to be spent in the coming years for new generations of nuclear submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In July 2014, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) issued a statement entitled “Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War.” The statement drew out the fundamental dynamics of the drive toward world war that find expression in Carter’s speech and the Pentagon’s proposed budget. It declared:
“The danger of a new world war arises out of the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system—between the development of a global economy and its division into antagonistic nation states, in which the private ownership of the means of production is rooted. This finds its most acute expression in the drive of US imperialism to dominate the Eurasian landmass, above all those areas from which it was excluded for decades by the Russian and Chinese revolutions. In the west, the US, in league with Germany, has orchestrated a fascist-led coup to bring Ukraine under its control. But its ambitions do not stop there. The ultimate objective is to dismember the Russian Federation, reducing it to a series of semi-colonies to open the way for the plunder of its vast natural resources. In the east, the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia is aimed at encircling China and transforming it into a semi-colony. Here, the objective is to ensure domination of the cheap labour that is one of the key global sources of the surplus value extracted from the working class and the life-blood of the capitalist economy.”
The ICFI went on to explain that the objective roots of the US drive for world domination ensure that an imperialist world war is inevitable outside of the revolutionary intervention of the international working class to put an end to the capitalist system and establish socialism. It stressed that the same contradictions that are the driving forces for war provide the objective impulse for socialist revolution.
In the year and a half since the ICFI issued its statement, these contradictions have only sharpened, intensifying existing wars and heightening the danger of new ones from the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the South China Sea, while at the same time driving the working class into increasingly bitter struggles against austerity and exploitation.
The historic question confronting humanity is the necessity for the working class to carry out the world socialist revolution before the capitalist ruling class can complete its descent into a war that threatens nuclear extinction. This places the greatest urgency on the political task of building the Fourth International as the revolutionary leadership of the world working class.
Bill Van Auken

Northern Europe Prepares For World War 3 (Revelation 15)

SWEDEN PREPARES TROOPS FOR WORLD WAR 3 — COULD IT HAPPEN SOONER THAN WE THOUGHT?

 CHRISTOPHER BROWN

Sweden, a country which has not officially been at war in over 200 years, could uncharacteristically be preparing for the war which even Einstein has said will be the worst war known to humankind,

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Sweden was politically neutral during the World War II — even as its bordering countries were invaded, fell under, or accepted the Third Reich or Soviet Russia.

The reason that the relatively peaceful nation will soon get involved with a potentially crippling world war is based on a statement given by Swedish General Anders Brännström. Breitbart reports that the general informed his troops “to expect to be fighting a war in Europe against skilled opponents within a few years,” via an internal army document.

Furthermore, Brännström’s documents were also given to civilians and politicians in case World War 3 does indeed break loose. And regarding Sweden’s military budget projected for 2016 to 2020, he noted that more money should be spent on military expenditures.

He also seemed to be adamant about his military performing well.

“The requirement of our ability to perform armed combat against a skilled opponent was clear, and this in context of the objective to create a front line against military attack and defend Sweden. The global environment we are experiencing which is also demonstrated by strategic decisions [taken by politicians] leads us to the conclusion we could be at war within a few years”

To actively prepare for World War 3, Sweden will engage in maneuvers that will focus on its army’s ability to fight and survive a “winter war,” as the general put it.

Aftonbladet (best-selling tabloid in Sweden) reports that Brännström’s warnings are stemmed from fears of ISIS capitalizing off of Europe’s deteriorating security as a whole. The spreading instability from Ukraine could lead to conflict as well.
“One can draw parallels with the 1930s. A great uncertainty and [political] dynamics which then led to a great war. That time we managed to keep out. But it is not at all certain we could succeed this time,” he said.

Breitbart also reports that the Swedish general is not alone in his fears as he noted that his senior colleagues all think that World War 3 is imminent. “This is a serious position shared by most. This is a completely different situation to the one we had ten years ago,” he added.

Breitbart London interviewed Rear Admiral Chris Parry of the United Kingdom and he also disclosed his fears of an ISIS campaign being launched on much of Europe in the near future. He told Breitbart London, “We will soon be experiencing minor hit and run attacks on remote parts of Europe, like Malta and the Greek Islands.”

The Inquisitr already reported on speculations of World War 3 happening in the near future last year. Sweden’s neighbor Finland made its own World War 3 predictions when the Finnish Defense Ministry began preparing its army to defend against Vladimir Putin’s threats.

And the U.S. Air Force even gave support by sending B-52 bombers to Sweden — the very country making the World War 3 claims now. The gesture was precautionary, which is evident now, but nevertheless the northern countries have been cautious of such threat for a while now. Do you think that Sweden and the rest of the world will soon be faced with World War 3? How do you think the U.S. will get involved if they do?

All Paths Lead To War (Revelation 16)

Obama’s Iran deal is a path to war

By Fred Fleitz
March 1, 2015 | 7:20pm

The Obama administration and its supporters insist that, although the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program now taking shape may not be perfect, the only alternative is war with Iran. A failure of the nuclear talks, they also contend, would sacrifice important temporary agreements that now restrict Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Both arguments are false. Worse, the nuclear deal that the administration is pursuing may make war with Iran more likely.

The world would be safer if the nuclear talks with Iran were stopped now.

The agreement being negotiated reportedly would last only 10 years and would leave Iran able to build multiple nuclear bombs in about three months. Administration leaks describe a deal that lets Iran keep on enriching uranium with as many as 6,500 centrifuges and continuing to work on the Arak heavy-water reactor that will be a source of plutonium.

Such an agreement would destabilize the Middle East — launching a regional nuclear-arms race as Iran’s Muslim rivals seek to match its capabilities, and perhaps prompting an Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Nor have the talks significantly reduced Iran’s nuclear program. Despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary, Iran has enriched uranium at the same rate since the nuclear talks began early last year and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.

STOPPING THE TALKS MIGHT ACTUALLY LOWER REGIONAL TENSIONS BY EASING THE FEARS OF ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER STATES THAT A WEAK, SHORT-LIVED NUCLEAR AGREEMENT IS COMING SOON.

It would take Iran about three months to produce fuel for its first nuclear weapon by refining its low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade material. At the end of 2013, it had on hand enough low-grade uranium for at least seven bombs; by the end of 2014, enough for at least eight.

In answer to criticism that a potential nuclear deal won’t be strong enough, Obama officials have claimed it will be subject to stringent inspections by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.
This argument is hard to take seriously: Iran has never fully cooperated with the IAEA. During the talks, it has specifically refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors — one of its several violations of the interim agreement that set up the talks.

The alternative to a deeply flawed nuclear deal is not war, it is continued stalemate — more of the slow development of the Iranian nuclear program that has persisted despite 13 months of nuclear talks.

Stopping the talks might actually lower regional tensions by easing the fears of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other states that a weak, short-lived nuclear agreement is coming soon — one that will end sanctions on Tehran and all restrictions on its future nuclear activities.

Congress should not be fooled by the Obama team’s false claim that it’s either their way on the Iranian nuclear program or war with Iran.

The truth is that the flawed agreement being negotiated will make a war more likely and kicks hard-to-solve elements of Iran’s nuclear program down the road for a future president to deal with.

Far better to halt the nuclear talks and return to the pre-2012 Western approach that required Iran to end uranium enrichment, disable its centrifuges, send its enriched-uranium stockpile out of the country and disassemble the Arak reactor.

Charles Krauthammer had it right last week on Fox News: The Iranian nuclear talks are “simply catastrophic.” The real catastrophe will be if this foolish agreement sparks a regional war in the Middle East.

The Seed Of WW3: The Asian Subcontinent (Rev 16)

CHINA, INDIA, PAKISTAN
SWABBING THE BLEAKNESS OF SUBCONTINENTAL NUCLEAR INSTABILITY – ANALYSIS

FEBRUARY 10, 2015
By IPCS
By Vijay Shankar*

After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, it dawned upon President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev how catastrophically close to nuclear war they had blundered due to a misshapen military-led nuclear policy, a ludicrous nuclear doctrine that believed that a nuclear war could be fought controlled and won. Both leaders sought a change to the nuclear status-quo. As Khrushchev described it, “The two most powerful nations had been squared off against each other, each with its finger on the button.” Kennedy shared this distress, remarking at a White House meeting, “It is insane that two men, sitting on opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilisation.” He called for an end to the Cold War. “If we cannot end our differences,” he said, “at least we can help make the world a safe place for diversity.” In a series of private letters, Khrushchev and Kennedy opened a dialogue on banning nuclear testing. Thus began a progression of political moves and agreements that sought to dampen the risk of a nuclear war, contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons, do away with tactical nuclear weapons, limit strategic arms, cut arsenal size and indeed bring stability to nuclear relations. If at all there is a historical lesson to be learned then it is that nuclear risk reduction and stability begins with serious dialogue between leadership.

The Subcontinental Nightmare

If one were to hypothesise what petrifying form a nuclear nightmare may take, then it is a hair trigger, opaque nuclear arsenal that has embraced tactical use under decentralised military control steered by a doctrine seeped in ambiguity and guided by a military strategy that carouses and finds unity with non-State actors. It does not take a great deal of intellectual exertions to declare that this nightmare is upon the subcontinent. The need to bring about an awakening to the dangers of a nuclear conflagration is therefore pressing.

The effect of an enfeebled civilian leadership in Pakistan that is incapable of action to remove the military finger from the nuclear trigger; the active attendance and involvement of jihadists in swaying strategy; technology intrusions brought in by covert means; absence or at best ambiguity in doctrinal underpinnings that make Pakistan’s nuclear posture indecipherable and the alarming reality of ‘intention-to-use’, all in aggregate makes the status-quo untenable. The need for change in the manner in which we transact nuclear business is urgent. Strategic restraint predicated on failsafe controls, verification in a transparent environment, providing logic to size and nature of the arsenal and putting the brakes on the slide to nuclear capriciousness become imperatives to stabilising the deterrent relationship on the subcontinent.

But the catch is, how does one begin a meaningful nuclear dialogue with an emasculated Pakistani civilian establishment that does not control a military which in turn finds no reason to come to terms with a subordinate role? And as Cohen so succinctly put it, “Pakistan will continue to be a state in possession of a uniformed bureaucracy even when civilian governments are perched on the seat of power. Regardless of what may be desirable, the army will continue to set the limits on what is possible in Pakistan.” Add to this is the widely held belief within the army that terror as sanctioned by the Quran (I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels: Sura 12) is a legitimate instrument of State power; the nature of the predicament becomes clear.

The Tri-Polar Tangle

A singular feature of the deterrent relationship in the region is its tri-polar character. As is well known today, it is the collusive nature of the Sino-Pak nuclear relationship which created and sustains its nuclear weapons programme. Therefore it is logical to conclude that there exists doctrinal links between the two which permits a duality in China’s nuclear policy; a declared No First Use can readily fall back on Pakistan’s developing First Use capability as far as India is concerned. Such links have made China blind to the dangers of nuclear proliferation as exemplified by the AQ Khan affair.
No scrutiny, of any consequence, of the regional nuclear situation can avoid looking at the internals of Pakistan. The country today represents a very dangerous condition that has been brought about by the precarious recipe that the establishment has brewed in nurturing fundamentalist and terrorist organisations as instruments of their military strategy. The extent to which their security establishment has been infiltrated is suggested by the attacks on PNS Mehran, Kamra air base, Karachi naval harbour and the assassination of the Punjab Governor; while the recent murderous assault on the Army School in Peshawar and the every day terror killings are more symptomatic of the free-run that these elements enjoy across the length and breadth of that country. Such a state of affairs does not inspire any confidence in the likelihood of the nuclear nightmare fading away or the robustness of their nuclear command and control structures to keep it in check.

Failure of the US Af-Pak Policy

As early as 2003 the US set out two major policy goals towards Pakistan, firstly holding it as an indispensable ally in its war in Afghanistan and secondly ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons in and from the region. However, over a decade later, both goals have failed dismally. There are confirmed reports that the Pak military has persistently deceived the US forces while elements within the former either lack the will to combat the insurgency or are actively involved with the jihadists. On the nuclear front, the rapid setting up of the unsafeguarded Khushab series (II, III and IV) nuclear reactors with Chinese collaboration having no other purpose than the production of weapon grade Plutonium, development of tactical nuclear weapons and the uninhibited growth of their arsenal do not in anyway enthuse belief in the US ability to exercise any stewardship over Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile. The inexplicable disappearance of key nuclear scientists who had recorded liaisons with al Qaeda remain alarming episodes that must cause anxieties. With US involvement in the Af-Pak greatly diminished and their focus on nuclear proliferation much sharper, the time is ripe for the US to clamp down on the maverick Pakistani nuclear posture.

Orientation of Sino-Pak Nuclear Collusion

The key to GHQ Rawalpindi’s compliance with rational norms of nuclear behaviour lies in Beijing. And the direction, in which Sino-Pak collusion is headed will to a large extent influence nuclear stability in the region. If the alliance was intended (as it now appears) to nurture a first use capability in order to keep subcontinental nuclear stability on the boil then the scope for achieving lasting stability is that much weakened. However, the current political situation in Pakistan presents a frightening possibility which is not in China’s interest to promote, more so, since Islamic terrorist elements have sworn to obtain nuclear weapons and the politico-ethnic situation in western China remains fragile. This in turn provides an opportunity to the Indian leadership to bring about change in the current ‘tri-polar tangle’.

A Blue Print for Regional Nuclear Stability

Against the reality of conventional war with its limited goals, moderated ends and the unlikelihood of it being outlawed in the foreseeable future, the separation of the conventional from the nuclear is a logical severance. Nuclear weapons are to deter and not for use; intent is the key; coherence and transparency are its basis. These remain the foundational principles that a nuclear weapon state must adhere to. However, given the politics of the region, historical animosities and the persisting dominance of the military in Pakistan, the dangers of adding nuclear malfeasance to military perfidy is more than just a possibility. Stability in this context would then suggest the importance of not only reinforcing assured retaliation to nuclear violence, but at the same time for India to bring about a consensus among both China and the US to compel Pakistan to harmonise with foundational rules of nuclear conduct. India’s current strategic relations with the US and Prime Minister Modi’s impending visit to China provides a timely opportunity to bring an end to the nightmare by swabbing the bleakness of subcontinental nuclear instability.

*Vijay Shankar
Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command of India

Russians Ready To Start World War 3 (Revelation 16)

World War 3: Russian Bomber Intercepted, Tu-95 Carried Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Claims England

The Inquisitr

Fears of World War 3 continue to rise, and when the RAF fighters scrambled to have a Russian bomber intercepted over the channel it was uncertain whether or not they actually carried Russia’s nuclear weapons. Now the British Ministry of Defense is claiming that Russian nuclear missiles were indeed on board the Tu-95 “Bear” bomber.

 In a related report by the Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin claims Russia will boast military superiority over the United States at least until 2020. The Russian military also recently claimed that Russia’s nuclear weapons were upgraded recently with new technology which supposedly makes U.S. missile defense system useless. Members of the U.S. Congress also claim that Putin has stationed Russian nuclear weapons in Ukraine already, and may even use Crimea for an invasion.

The sight of the two Russian bombers so close to British air space was yet another sign that Cold War 2 was upon us. During the confrontation, Tu-95 bombers and the RAF Typhoons came as close as 1,000 feet away from each other. They were so close that the British pilots could communicate with the Russian bomber with hand signals.

Sources within the British Ministry of Defense claims that one of the two Russian bombers intercepted carried at least one of Russia’s nuclear weapons designed to “seek and find” Trident submarines. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense Secretary Michael Fallon were alerted after cockpit conversations confirmed the Russian bomber’s nuclear payload were intercepted by a Norwegian military listening post.

“We downloaded conversations from the crew of one plane who used a special word which meant the would-be attack was a training exercise,” said a senior RAF source according to Express. “They know that we can pick up their transmissions and it would only be of concern if the often used release weapon order was changed. We also knew from another source that one of the aircraft was carrying a nuclear weapon long before it came anywhere near UK airspace.”

Experts say the belief that the Russian bomber was carrying nuclear weapons is an example that Vladimir Putin is upping his game.

“This continual and increasing probing of NATO airspace by these nuclear bombers and fighter aircraft, tankers and electronic aircraft by Russian is a pattern of increased pressure by Russia designed to remind the West and NATO that they remain a large nuclear power, and a serious military power with reach,” said Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute.

Some experts also claim the RAF is stretched too thin with its current defensive capabilities with threats of World War 3 on their doorstep.

“Putin is making the point that he has nuclear weapons and will carry them wherever he wants and NATO just has to take it,” said Air Cmdre Andrew Lambert, of the U.K. National Defense Association. “We have reduced the number of or Typhoon squadrons to the bare minimum. They have the Quick Reaction Alert commitments, NATO’s Baltic effort, and of course, the Falklands. So we are stretched three ways. We have too few air defense aircraft bearing in mind the commitments we now have.

Fortunately, the Russian bomber was not on a mission to start World War 3, and Vladimir Putin would have been required to give a direct order in order to make the warhead live. The other Russian bomber was apparently acting as a “mothership” during the military exercise.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1804787/world-war-3-russian-bomber-intercepted-tu-95-carried-russias-nuclear-weapons-claims-england/#Qb0emZWolEvh3gPk.99

Ukraine’s Big Lesson: Don’t Give Up Your Nukes

World War 3: Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Threat Has Ukraine Discussing Restoring Nukes

Posted in: Politics Posted: September 14, 2014

 

Ukraine is apparently preparing for the possibility of World War 3, with Ukraine’s defense minister responding to Russia’s nuclear weapons threats by claiming they may consider restoring Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs.In a related report by The Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin has been escalating tensions lately with the announcement of a Russian nuclear weapon test launch of an ICBM from a nuclear submarine. Putin has also promised the Western world that there will be “corresponding countermeasures” to any sanctions, and is already working hard on improving Russia’s nuclear weapons programs.
Due to recent world events, Catholic leader Pope Francis has declared that World War 3 has already begun in a “piecemeal” fashion in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Africa.

“War is madness,” Pope Francis declared. “Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction. War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying. Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology.”

It’s not only the Western world that fears World War 3 is around the corner. A recent poll in China showed that a majority of the Chinese believe World War 3 will happen relatively soon.

Ukraine’s Nuclear Weapons Program Restored?

Under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was urged to give up its nuclear weapons it had retained from the former Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum obligated the United States, England, and the newly formed Russian Federation to respect Ukraine’s border in return for Ukraine’s agreement to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons. If any party were to violate Ukraine’s territory, or to provide “threat or use of force” or “economic coercion,” the Budapest Memorandum obligated each party to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine.”

According to Vestnik Kavkaza, Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valerii Heletei claimed earlier today during a press conference that Russia is threatening Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.

“I am drawing attention to Russia’s threatening Ukraine with the use of tactical nuclear weapons,” Heletei noted. “If we fail to defend Ukraine today, if the world does not help us, we will have to get back to the creation of such weapons, which will defend us from Russia.”

Fortunately, Ukraine will not restore the development its own nuclear weapons immediately, but it is being considered as an option for the future. Heletei stressed that Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs would only be an option if NATO member states do not provide weapons, especially from member states like the United States and England.

According to BBC News, Heletei also claimed that some NATO countries have begun sending Ukraine weapons.

“I have no right to disclose any specific country we reached that agreement with. But the fact is that those weapons are already on the way to us – that’s absolutely true, I can officially tell you,” he said.

Defense officials representing the United States, Italy, Poland, and Norway have already denied there any plans to send weapons to Ukraine.

So far, the Ukraine war has resulted in 2,600 deaths in the last five months of conflict with pro-Russian forces. According to NATO, Russia’s military has about 1,000 troops in eastern Ukraine, while an army of about 20,000 more are stationed near the border. Russia denies sending direct military aid to the rebels, insisting any Russian soldiers are “volunteers” fighting in the war.

Do you think the Ukraine war could potentially escalate into World War 3? How do you think the world’s leaders should resolve the conflict?

The First Horn Of Iran Still Preparing For World War 3

Iran Unveils Advanced Military Hardware After Nuke Talks Fail

New cruise missiles, torpedoes, warships, combat helicopters unveiled

Ali Khamenei / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
Washington Free Beacon
December 2, 2014 9:02 am

Iran on Monday unveiled new missiles, torpedoes, and warships just a week after nuclear negotiations between Tehran and the West broke apart with little headway made between the sides.

The new military hardware was widely publicized by Iranian military leaders following an order by Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei urging the country’s armed forces to step up their combat readiness despite an extension in nuclear talks with the West.

The Iranian Navy displayed a crop of new vessels equipped with cruise missiles and other rockets. Also unveiled were new attack helicopters “equipped with Iran’s latest home-grown torpedoes,” according to Iranian military leaders quoted by the country’s state-controlled press.

The show of force is likely meant to send a message to the United States and other Western nations following another failed round of talks over Iran’s contested nuclear weapons program.

Iran is pushing for the West to formally recognize its right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, while Western powers are seeking to limit the scope and secrecy of the program.

The tough rhetoric from Tehran is being backed up by a show of military force focusing on Iran’s ability to domestically produce a range of advanced weaponry, including cruise missiles.

“10 Navy vessels have or are being armed with missile systems,” Rear Admiral Abbas Zamini, the Iranian Navy’s technical affairs chief, announced during a military ceremony on Monday, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

“These missiles include Nasr, Nour, and Qader cruise missiles,” Zamini was quoted as saying.

Iranian Army Commander, Major General Ataollah Salehi, additionally bragged that Iran’s “missiles, rockets, and artilleries” are “the best” during the ceremony.

“Today all our units, including subsurface, vessel, and air units are equipped with the best missiles, rockets and artilleries,” he was quoted as saying.

The new missile-armed warships will be deployed to southern Iran and include “Sirik-class and Kalat-class warships, as well as 4 Fajr, Shams, Fath, and Nour vessels,” according to Fars.

“All these vessels which were used in logistical and sea patrolling missions before have been equipped with surface-to-surface cruise missiles now,” Fars reported military leaders as saying.

The Navy also unveiled two new anti-subsurface helicopters, along with new hovercrafts, anti-surface helicopters, and a sea patrol aircraft “equipped with Iran’s latest home-grown torpedoes,” according to Fars.

These torpedoes are diverse and can also be fired from submarines or surface vessels.

Iran announced last week that it is using several new combat and radar systems.

As the new hardware was displayed, Iranian military leaders stepped up their rhetoric, stating that Iran will do what it pleases in international waters.

“The countries which are deployed in the Gulf of Aden region are members of a military pact but we act (in that region) independent from others and are after the establishment of peace and friendship,” Salehi was quoted as saying on Monday.

Khamenei said over the weekend during a televised speech that the negotiations provide Iran time to “build up on preemptive capacities.”

“Peacetime offers great opportunities for our armed forces to … build up on preemptive capacities,” Khamenei reportedly said.

“Given our vast maritime borders and the enemy’s huge investments in this area, our armed forces should continuously improve their [combat] readiness, irrespective of political calculations,” the supreme leader added.