WW3 On Pussyfeet (8)
©
Usually violent harm
comes to the body from the outside be it a sword, an axe, a bullet, shrapnel,
atomic blast, meteor, or a curse. There are times, however, when the violence
from outside enters our inside, and then, somewhat like cancer, causes our body
to collapse around it.
One such inside from
outside violent matter is gas, nerve gas, specifically Sarin. Because it
is odorless and easily mixes with water, it is an ideal invasive agent.
Depending on its concentration, the death can be the result of quick
asphyxiation or slow convulsive choking.
Just today the U.S.
announced that it is taking preparatory steps for a war on Syria ,
because it blames, without direct proof (except for the word of the big
corporation financed “Doctors
Without Borders”) , that Syria has used Sarin
in retaliation for attacks by so-called SLA or Syrian Liberation Army, which in
effect is made up of Islamic ‘crusaders’ against Islamic secular powers. The U.S. , which has turned Capitalism into a religion
is taking the side of the SLA with the aim of accomplishing a ‘regime change’
against Syria ’s
Assad government.
If indeed Syria has used Sarin, it apparently is because the SLA was joined and is being led
by advance U.S. ,
Israeli, and Jordanian forces since August 15 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-23/us-refines-military-options-ahead-syrian-strikes.
It is conceivable that these invasive forces within Syria
have begun their premeditated ‘false flag’ operations beginning with the Sarin attack (blame Syria for it,
of course), now soon likely to be supplemented by cruise missiles.
Be that as it may, the
current international tensions present all small and middling state capitals
with imminent danger of an attack by a nuclear device.
How so? The question is
not difficult to answer.
Consider that you are
an empire and an ally of yours (Syria
under the wing of Russia and
China )
is facing an imminent attack. What would you do? Would you attack the immediate
threatening powers, who would you strike back?
The answer is you would
attack some innocent state with no nuclear devices of its own. You would most
likely target some ‘small and middling state capital’. Again, the reason is
easy to discern.
Why would a large
empire attack its direct enemy first, if an attack on an innocent and unawares
bystander would better serve its purpose?
What if, for example, a
pre-installed nuclear
device were to be exploded, say in a
major Canadian, German, French, Spanish, Italian, or Turkish city? Or you would
chose a capital city in the Batics or, for that matter, the Hawaiian Islands,
or the Ukraine ?
Who could definitively
prove where such devices originated from?
And who could prevent
the inhabitants of major world cities from panicking and making an attempt to
flee their urban environment?
Would this not initiate
chaos in many if not all cities of the world?
And what if such
pre-installed nuclear devices exist in not only one, but many cities and several
are exploded at the same time?
Of course, this writer
is nowhere near any nuclear buttons, but at the same time, he hears the war of
words and the anxiety implicit in statements by leaders
, who fear that an enemy—so far held at arms length—suddenly pushes a button
that finds them as unprepared for an attack as, say, in this case, the innocent
bystanders. As we well know from WW2, Hitler perhaps hoped that Great Brittain
would not enter the fray when he attacked Poland ,
nevertheless, if England
had remained on the sidelines, the victory of WW2 would more than likely have
gone to Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia. Indeed, Stalin held to the presumption
that his ‘deal’ with Hitler would keep the Nazi leader from attacking him. Had
not Hitler made grave mistakes and if England had not entered the war,
Stalin would indeed have died in a bunker of his own.
In any event, this
writer suspects that if and when WW3 breaks out, the leadership of no country
will be found in the capital cities of their respective countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment