Blame the Muslims.

The Daily Mail

 

General Peter Wall has warned that more cuts to Army spending will be “quite dangerous, quite soon”.

He obviously knows about Bald Willie’s plans for WW3 then:

General Sir Peter Wall, head of the Army, warned further savings would damage ‘our chances of success on the battlefields’

Britain’s chances of winning future wars will be ‘seriously damaged’ by more crippling spending cuts, the country’s top soldier has warned.

General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the Army, said further savings likely to be ordered by the Government could prove ‘quite dangerous, quite soon’.

That certainly sounds to me like he is expecting a war soon. After all, he can’t be referring to us being attacked.  The only time we ever go to war is when our government and Sovereign want to. 

Reducing the number of soldiers to 82,000 may make it difficult to keep up with all the corporate invasion plans obviously, but that number is more than enough to protect our shores, in the very, very unlikely event that a country declares war on the UK… Fucking idiot.

No surprise then, that the very same day that the Daily Mail publish this old bollocks, they also run a story about Syria triggering WW3 (see 2nd article).

Never the less, I had to have a rye chuckle at the fact that the shit propaganda rag blames Muslims for the fact:

Could Syria ignite World War 3? That’s the terrifying question as the hatred between two Muslim ideologies sucks in the world’s superpowers.

Obviously, it couldn’t be anything to do with the US and UK funding the Syrian ‘rebels’ because our governments want Assad out in order to put a tame puppet in place.

Funny how everything is always the Muslims fault in the corporate world of politics… The world is run by lying scum don’t cha know.

Don’t believe the truth.

Britain’s top soldier warns more cuts to the Army means we will suffer on the battlefield

  • General Sir Peter Wall said more cuts could be ‘quite dangerous, quite soon’
  • Size of the Army is being reduced from 102,000 three years ago to 82,000
  • Army will be at lowest level since before the Napoleonic Wars

By IAN DRURY, DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT

PUBLISHED: 01:58, 14 June 2013 | UPDATED: 01:58, 14 June 2013

 

General Sir Peter WallGeneral Sir Peter Wall, head of the Army, warned further savings would damage ‘our chances of success on the battlefields’

Britain’s chances of winning future wars will be ‘seriously damaged’ by more crippling spending cuts, the country’s top soldier has warned.

General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the Army, said further savings likely to be ordered by the Government could prove ‘quite dangerous, quite soon’.

Under current plans, the size of the Army is being reduced from 102,000 three years ago to 82,000 – small enough for every soldier to fit inside Wembley Stadium.

The latest raft of around 5,000 redundancies will be confirmed on Tuesday, shrinking the number of personnel to 90,000 – its lowest level since before the Napoleonic Wars began 200 years ago.

But the Ministry of Defence is expected to be ordered by the Treasury to make further cuts of at least £1billion.

Last night General Wall raised concerns about demanding more savings of the Armed Forces.

He said: ‘Imposing more on us now before the last round of efficiencies have really materialised properly in a balanced way would be very disruptive.

‘We have got to the point in certain areas where we can’t go any further without seriously damaging our professional competence and our chances of success on the battlefields of the future.’

He told Sky’s Jeff Randall that further cuts would leave the Army ‘close’ to dysfunctional.

Former commanders have warned the controversial cuts are too deep, leaving the Army perilously overstretched and unable to take on all the major military commitments demanded by ministers.

 

 

Some 5,000 personnel each from the RAF and Navy have already been made redundant.

General Sir Peter Wall said any further savings could prove 'quite dangerous, quite soon' (file picture) General Sir Peter Wall said any further savings could prove ‘quite dangerous, quite soon’ (file picture)

The Government wants to reshape the Army, replacing regular troops by doubling the number of part-time soldiers to 30,000.

Top brass have also been forced to sacrifice aircraft carriers, fast jets and armoured vehicles to save £4.7billion and meet a £38billion overspend in the equipment budget.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the financial bombardment from Chancellor George Osborne would damage our defence capability.

He said: ‘Simply trying to salami slice across all areas is likely to lead to the worst possible outcome.

‘If we have to make further reductions, I would rather identify specific areas and capabilities that we will agree to gap for a period of time and accept and manage the risks that are involved.’

 

A RAF Tornado jet. 5,000 personnel each from the RAF and Navy have already been made redundant A RAF Tornado jet. 5,000 personnel each from the RAF and Navy have already been made redundant

Lieutenant General Nick Carter, the most senior British soldier in Afghanistan and the architect of the blueprint to shake up the Army by 2020, said the responsibility for any weakening of the UK’s defence should lie with the Treasury.

He said: ‘At the end of the day our politicians need to decide what they want the Army to do.

‘If they determine that the Army is going to do less, it’s reasonable for them to reduce it still further.

‘We are bound as military people to point out the risks during the course of this to our political masters and ultimately it’s down to them to look themselves in the mirror each morning and determine whether or not those risks are manageable.’

Could Syria ignite World War 3? That’s the terrifying question as the hatred between two Muslim ideologies sucks in the world’s superpowers

  • Syrian conflict could engulf region in struggle between Sunni and Shia
  • Already claimed 93,000 lives and made 1.6million people refugees
  • UK, France and U.S. taken different side to China and Russia

By MICHAEL BURLEIGH

 

The crisis in Syria may appear to be no more or less than a civil war in a country many people would struggle to place on a map.

But it’s much more than that: it is rapidly becoming a sectarian struggle for power that is bleeding across the Middle East, with the potential to engulf the entire region in a deadly power struggle between two bitterly opposed Muslim ideologies, Sunni and Shia.

Already, the war inside Syria has resulted in 93,000 dead and 1.6 million refugees, with millions more displaced internally. And those figures are escalating rapidly amid reports of appalling atrocities on both sides.

The Syrian crisis has potential to engulf the entire region in a power struggle between Sunni and ShiaThe Syrian crisis has potential to engulf the entire region in a power struggle between Sunni and Shia

 

Syria is surrounded by countries in the Middle East that have allegiances to either Assad's regime or the rebels Syria is surrounded by countries in the Middle East that have allegiances to either Assad’s regime or the rebels

The conflict started in 2011 with peaceful protests against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the seemingly mild successor to his father Hafez, who between 1970 and 2000 ruled Syria with a rod of iron.

Hafez’s response to dissent from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood was to wipe out a town of 20,000 people.

 

 

Fearing that Syria faced the kind of protests that had toppled the rulers of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya during the ‘Arab Spring’, Bashar al-Assad’s security forces used tanks and gunfire to crush the demonstrations. But it only stoked the fires.

The opposition developed into an armed insurgency, and now Syria has been engulfed in a civil war which has degenerated into a vicious sectarian conflict.

On one side are those who follow President Assad, who belongs to the Alawites — a splinter sect from Shia Islam.

On the other are a loose affiliation of insurgents drawn from the majority Sunni population, some of whom have close links to the Sunni jihadists of Al Qaeda.

The level of savagery is appalling. This week, up to 60 Shia Muslims were reported to have been slaughtered in an attack by opposition fighters in the eastern Syrian city of Hatla.

William Hague, left, is in Washington with John Kerry, right, for talks which are likely to focus on the situation in SyriaWilliam Hague, left, is in Washington with John Kerry, right, for talks which are likely to focus on the situation in Syria. The world’s superpowers have taken a public stance on the Syrian conflict

 

The conflict in Syria has already claimed 93,000 lives and left 1.6million people refugees The conflict in Syria has already claimed 93,000 lives and left 1.6million people refugees

IRAN.jpg

A gloating cameraman who filmed the aftermath said: ‘This is the Shia carcass, this is their end.’

Sadly, it is an all too familiar story in a religious conflict that dates back to the 7th century.

After the death of the Prophet Mohammed in 632AD, there were four candidates vying to succeed him.

One group, which would become the Shia (or Shi’ite) sect, favoured the claims of the Prophet’s grandson Ali, but he was passed over three times before eventually taking on the mantle, only to then be assassinated.

An irrevocable split between the Shia — which is run by a clerical hierarchy — and the group that became the Sunnis came after a battle in 680, when Ali’s grandson was killed.

Today, in Syria and across the Middle East, the divide is a gulf in which theology plays an important role.

The main pillars of the current Assad regime are the army, the intelligence services and the Ba’athists, the local version of the national party Saddam Hussein led in Iraq.

Assad’s backbone is stiffened by the influence of his mother and uncles, who want to crush the Syrian rebels.

Many wealthy businessmen in the capital Damascus also support the Assads, as do Christians who fear the rapid establishment of an Islamist state if he falls.

At the heart of the Syrian regime are members of Assad’s Alawite sect, who make up 12 per cent of the population, yet represent 80  per cent of army officers and  90  per cent of generals.

There is also an Alawite militia called the shabbiha that specialises in murdering opponents.

 

Christians make up 10 per cent of the Syrian population, while another 10 per cent are Kurds, who are Sunnis and present in much larger numbers in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, too.

IRAQ.jpg
LEBANON.jpg
TURKEY.jpg
ISRAEL.jpgISRAEL.jpg

The great danger is Syria might fragment into three or four pieces on sectarian lines, with anyone marooned in the wrong enclave liable to face vicious ethnic cleansing.

And because the conflict is driven by religion, it could easily leap Syria’s frontiers to draw in regional powers.

So who is aligned with whom? Broadly speaking, Assad is supported by Iran (the main Shia power in the Middle East) and its militant Lebanese ally, the terrorist group Hezbollah.

The latter is Iran’s main weapon in any fight with Israel.

As a result, Assad is advised (and protected) by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and there are also between 5,000 and 8,000 seasoned Hezbollah fighters inside Syria.

They have made a considerable difference — they fought the well-drilled Israeli army to a draw in 2006.

The forces against Assad are joined by thousands of fighters flooding the country every week from across the region.

The rebels have also benefited from the ferocious will-to-die of an Islamist group called Jabhat al-Nusra, which is allied with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Many more rebels are Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood persuasion.

They are supported with guns and money from Sunni states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Such are the complex connections between modern nations, and the globalised nature of international politics, that repercussions could be felt around the world.

What happens in Syria affects Israel, with which it shares a militarised border on the Golan Heights. And what affects Israel also involves the U.S., its staunch ally.

JORDAN.jpg

Although President Obama wants to downgrade America’s involvement in the Middle East now the U.S. can rely on reserves of cheap shale oil and gas at home, his own somewhat ostentatious concern for human rights keeps sucking him back in to side with the rebels.

That is also broadly the position of Britain and France, whose leaders seem swayed by lurid and unverified social media footage of atrocities.

But while leading NATO nations line up in sympathy with the rebels, on the other side President Assad is being backed by Russia — a long-time friend of Syria — and by China.

Russia and China feel they were tricked by the West over the way the Libyan regime was overthrown with Western aid two years ago, and are determined Assad won’t be ousted and murdered like Gaddafi.

The war in Syria therefore has had a destabilising effect on the entire region, and could exert a terrifying domino effect as states disintegrate.

Whether such a nightmare scenario can be avoided — and global superpowers can be persuaded to keep their powder dry — we must wait to see with baited breath.

HOW AMERICA AND RUSSIA.jpg

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html#ixzz2WAejWXmc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook