The World responds to Syrian strikes by picking sides – Is WW3 Imminent?

CNN has released a potential line-up for what could become WW3 in the fallout of the US strikes on the Syrian airbase.

The information released to the public so far on the initial chemical attack and follow-up Tomahawk strikes by the US has seen not only the world divide, but both Trump supporters and detractors change their stances on the President and his actions.

The majority of the mainstream media have viewed the strikes in a positive light whilst many of Trump’s more vocal supporters have come out in opposition of the military intervention.

One thing is for sure, no one outside of military and political insiders close to the Trump, Putin and Assad camps have 100% of the facts and are basing their opinions on assumptions and the official positions of the governments rather than the complete facts.

US officials and allies described the attack, which saw 59 tomahawk missiles launched from US Navy warships in the Mediterranean Sea, as a one-off that would not lead to further escalation. 

Supporting Syrian Strikes

  • 🇺🇸 USA
  • 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
  • 🇩🇪 Germany
  • 🇦🇺 Australia
  • 🇫🇷 France
  • 🇪🇸 Spain
  • 🇮🇱 Israel
  • 🇨🇦 Canada
  • 🇯🇵 Japan
  • 🇹🇷 Turkey
  • 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia

Against Syrian Strikes

  • 🇸🇾 Syria – Assad Government
  • 🇷🇺 Russia
  • 🇨🇳 China
  • 🇮🇷 Iran

Assured Neutrality​

  • 🇨🇭 Switzerland

For all we know, in 50yrs time we may look back on the Syrian chemical attack in the same way we look back on the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Este Franz Ferdinand – As the trigger point for a World War.

    Given the choices, I’m sure many would prefer if certain countries were on opposite sides of this potential war. I for one would much prefer if Russia and China were to swap positions with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but the only hopeful outcome is that this current conflict does not escalate to the point of a third world war.

    Noting sides of WW1 & WW2

    World War 1

      Allies (at one point or another)

      Central Powers

      Neutral countries

    World War 2

    The devastation and number of casualties seen by both sides in each of these wars should be enough to see most people wish for a solution to this conflict that does not result in all out war…

    Advertisements

    Brendan O’Neill takes on Leftist Holocaust Dilutionists for comparing Trump to Hitler

    On the 72nd anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz, numerous moral-highground preaching puppets have reiterated the well-used, pathetic claim that “Trump is literally Hitler”..

    Brendan O’Neill has taken aim at these incessantly idiotic whingers in a recent Facebook post.

    It’s interesting that once upon a time the only members of Western society who denied the Holocaust or made light of its devastation were members of the Islamic community. Now, arm-in-arm those who dwell in the fringes of the far-left seek to dilute the horror that was the Holocaust do they can compare it to political outcomes they didn’t find favourable, ie. Brexit, Trump, Hanson..


    The Holocaust was one of the worst events in human history and possibly THE WORST event in modern human history. Here are a selection of photos depicting the horror that was Auschwitz as well as the relief after the liberation by the Red Army.

    It’s important to not let political correctness and/or political differences further corrupt or dilute this tragedy!


    Brendan O’Neill can be found on Facebook by following this link.


    Copyright © 2017 ALTCON


     

    In 2005 Rowan Atkinson publicly opposed religious vilification laws, Here’s his speech.

    ROWAN ATKINSON’S SPEECH ON OPPOSING RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION LAWS JANUARY, 2005.

    I am here to plead the case in opposition to a law of Incitement of Religious Hatred on behalf of those who make a living from creativity: those whose job it is to analyse, to criticise and to satirise. Authors, journalists, academics, actors, politicians and comedians. All of whom, the government claim, need have no concerns about the legislation but as the arguments both for and against the measure have evolved, I believe that these reassurances are a politically motivated fiction.


    I question the legislation and the thoughts behind it for the following reasons:

    Firstly, the government’s belief that the measure will promote racial tolerance. Now racial tolerance may sound a pretty inarguable notion. Unfortunately, what is very arguable is the definition of the term – the definition of a tolerant society. Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion and out of a desire not to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism? Or is a tolerant society one where, in the name of freedom, the tolerance that is promoted is the tolerance of occasionally hearing things you don’t want to hear. Of reading things you don’t want to read. Where it is encouraged to question, to criticise and if necessary to ridicule any ideas and ideals and then the holders of those ideals have an equal right to counter-criticise, to counter-argue and to make their case. That is my idea of a tolerant society – an open and vigorous one, not one that is closed and stifled in some contrived notion of correctness.


    I question also the ease with which the existing race hatred legislation is going to be extended simply by the scoring out of the word “racial” and the insertion of “racial or religious hatred” as if race and religion are very similar ideas and we can just bundle them together in one big lump. When it seems clear to me and to most people that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts, requiring completely different treatment under the law. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas – any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society and a law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It promotes the idea that there should be a right not to be offended, when in my view, the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended, simply because one represents openness, the other represents oppression.


    Thirdly, I question the inarguable nature of the phrase “religious hatred”, afforded by the use of the highly emotive word “hatred”. So I thought I would modify the name of the proposed measure, by changing the terminology but retaining the meaning and use the dictionary definition of the word hatred, which is: intense dislike. Incitment of Religious Intense Dislike. Isn’t it strange how that small change makes it seem a much less desirable or necessary measure? I then found my self asking a strange question. What is wrong with encouraging intense dislike of a religion? Why shouldn’t you do that, if the beliefs of that religion or the activities perpetrated in its name deserve to be intensely disliked? What if the teaching or beliefs of the religion are so out-moded, hypocritical and hateful that not expressing criticism of them would be perverse? The government claim that one would be allowed to say what you like about beliefs because the measure is not intended to defend beliefs but believers. But I don’t see how you can distinguish between them. Beliefs are only invested with life and meaning by believers. If you attack beliefs, you are automatically attacking those who believe the beliefs. You wouldn’t need to criticise the beliefs if no-one believed them.


    I also take issue with the consultation process. After the initial failure to get the law passed in 2001, the government then engaged in a consultation process, involving a House of Lords Select committee and I believe another forum in which it was discussed, to arrive at a new version of the measure that was launched last autumn. And what I find extraordinary is that the government is so wedded to the notion that nobody other then the most rabid fascists could possibly fall foul of this legislation, that the consultation process didn’t include anyone from the creative community. Many organizations were consulted in the drafting of this legislation, religious organizations, civil liberties groups, law enforcement people but not one writer, not one journalist, not one academic, not one television producer, theatrical producer, no actor, no comedian, basically nobody whose work might be affected by it. How weird this denial of those concerns, when the incident that most inspired those who have been seeking the introduction of this legislation was the publication of a book. And the most vociferous religious protests we have seen in Britain in the last few months have been against a Sikh play and a televised opera. Again, the government will say that these creative works are not the intended targets of this legislation but that raises two issues. Firstly, that many religious organizations think they are and they look forward to wielding their influence to bring prosecutions. And if their ambitions are thwarted, there is a high risk of a violent reaction. Secondly, the government are unable to say that creative endeavours could not possibly be targets. And the reason they can’t give that degree of reassurance is because creative endeavours clearly could. Comedy could. Newspaper articles could. Theatrical plays could. The legislation is very simple, very clear and very broad.



    The government are relying entirely on the wisdom of the Attorney General to protect people like me. It is this discretionary nature of the legislation which is arguably the most disturbing thing about it. It allows the government to rubbish the concerns of the creative community “You have nothing to worry about” without offering any concrete reassurances other than that the Attorney General will look after you. What kind of reassurance is that? The Attorney General is not an independent adjudicator. He is an instrument of government: what is politically expedient will be his guide. As the 9/11 attacks in the United States showed, the political agenda in any country can change in a matter of hours. Who’s to say what his priorities are going to be in five days time, or five hours time, or in five years time? The government’s belief that religious hatred legislation will work just like that of racial hatred is optimistic in the extreme: the pressures in relation to religious hatred are going to be on a completely different scale to that for race – the spread of fundamentalism across a whole range of religions is going to make the issue politically far more highly charged. And even if I had faith that the Attorney General would bail me out in the end, what would I have to go through first?


    I don’t particularly want to discover that my comedy revue has not, after all, fallen foul of the legislation sitting in an interview room in Paddington Green police station. I would like to know that I could not possibly be put in that situation because of my criticism or ridicule of religious ideas and by implication, those who follow those ideas. And we now know that even the Attorney General’s judgments can be subjected to judicial review. Where would it end?


    I question also the notion that someone like me would have nothing to worry about because of the wording in the measure that intent would have to be proved: you would have to intend to incite intense dislike to fall foul of the law. It may be that in some creative writing one could claim a lack of intention “I didn’t mean to offend, its just that people took offence” but the very nature of a joke is that it is not an accident. It’s a construct, a contrivance, it is intended to hit home, to strike a nerve. A joke is a deliberate act. Is it an unacceptable joke – an illegal joke – simply because you know that people are going to be offended by it and potentially more disliked as a result? .


    However, we have to address the issues that have driven the government to their current position. We have to sympathise and empathise with the most conspicuous promoters of this legislation, certain British Muslims and I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance. Because there is a bigger picture. The defence of intellectual curiosity, the right to criticise ideas, whatever form they have and the right to ridicule the ridiculous, in whatever context it lies. These ramifications are being denied by the government because it is politically expedient for them to do so but I have been reassured by nothing I have seen, heard and read.


    I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who are seeking this legislation but I do question the government’s enthusiasm for it so close to a General Election, an enthusiasm that must be rooted in their belief that this measure could help their cause in some marginal constituencies with large religious populations, many of whom are critical of the government’s prosecution of the war in Iraq. It seems a shame we have to be robbed permanently of one of the pillars of freedom of expression because it’s needed temporarily to shore up a wobbling edifice elsewhere.


    Copyright © 2017 ALTCON


    Western Patriotism vs Muslims who beat woman to death after false accusation

    **WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT**

    The woman is beaten, stoned, kicked, pummeled and then finally burned to death, her crime? She was FALSLY accused of burning the Quran!

    The billions of dollars spent by the US, Australia, Canada and Europe trying to institute rational law over Sharia law has been a clueless and quixotic endeavor, which has only resulted in money and arms being distributed amongst those who would rather see the West burn.. We should not spend a single cent on any country that abides by the vile Sharia Law!

    The New York Times (NYT) reports that “justice has been flawed after an Afghan mob savagely killed Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old aspiring student of Islam, in March.”

    “The more devout the Muslim country is, the more brutal and bloodthirsty it is. Watch how the mob grows especially with the call to Muslim prayers.”



    There is a reason that there is a movement taking place across every single Western country as they move towards their democratic elections. The people are fed up with the globalist lies we have been fed about Islam and Multiculturalism.

    Patriots are supporting each other and unlike traditional patriotism focused on Isolation, this modern patriotic movement extends in the sense that the Australian patriots wanted to see the American patriots succeed in electing Donald Trump, the Dutch patriots wanted to see the British patriots succeed in voting for Brexit and the German patriots wish to see the French patriots succeed and elect Marine Le Pen of Front National Party in their election, in 2017.

    We patriots wish not to see our own countries prosper whilst others fail.. We wish to see all Western countries prosper yet focus on their own people. Charity starts at home and we need to look after our own citizens before we virtue signal to the globalist elite and put our citizens at risk of horrific crimes such as that witnessed in this video!

    ALTCon News UPDATES: European Terror 19/12/16 [Assassination footage may be distressing]

    The mainstream media were right when they said “fake news” had real world consequences and the consequences of the FAKE NEWS coming out of Aleppo (blaming Russia for bombings and deaths of innocents) has resulted in the actual loss of life of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov. [see CCTV footage that proves the mainstream is faking the deaths of the Syrian people and blaming Russia]

    Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov assassinated by off-duty police officer in Ankara, Turkey.

    Mr Putin said this evening: “This murder is clearly a provocation aimed at undermining the improvement and normalisation of Russian-Turkish relations as well as undermining the peace process in Syria promoted by Russia, Turkey, Iran and other countries interested in solving this conflict in Syria. 

    “The only response we should offer to this murder is stepping up our fight against terror.

    *8am update: Ambassador allegedly shot due to fighting in Aleppo. “We die in Aleppo, you die here!”*

    “22-year-old Mevlüt Mert Altintas has been identified as the assassin. According to mayor Melih Gokcek the gunman was a special forces police officer.”

    The gunman, described by Turkish officials as a 22-year-old off-duty police officer.

    Before he was shot dead by Turkish Special Forces, Altintas shouted: “Don’t forget Aleppo! Don’t forget Syria!”

    “Stand back! Stand back! Only death will take me out of here. Anyone who has a role in this oppression will die one by one.”

    Amid the chaos that followed the shooting, eyewitnesses reported that Altintas shouted “Allahu akbar”, which is an Arabic phrase commonly uttered by terrorists for “God is great”.

    WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT [Video of Assassination]

    Will Ambassador Andrei Karlov become the Franz Ferdinand of this century?


    Truck ploughs through shoppers at Christmas Market in Berlin.

    **UPDATE 23/12/16 21:45**

    Anis Amri, the man suspected of killing 12 people in the Berlin attack, has reportedly been shot dead in Italy.

    “Security agencies exchanged info as recently as November that allegedly tied Anis Amri to Islamist militants, yet the Tunisian-born 24-year-old was able to evade terror investigators in the lead-up to Monday’s ISIS-claimed massacre, which killed 12 and wounded 48.”

    Another person has been found dead inside the tuck which reports are stating was hijacked as it left Poland headed for Germany.

    According to The Australian

    A Polish lorry driver was murdered in a terrorist hijacking after being told that he was too early to deliver his goods and had to wait overnight.

    Lukasz Urban, 37, may have been attacked as he slept in the cab of his 40-tonne lorry near his destination, a steel warehouse in the northwest of Berlin. The vehicle was later taken on a rampage through a packed Christmas market in the centre of the city.

    Police began a fingertip search of the area around Friedrich-Krause-Ufer last night where Mr Urban is believed to have been parked when he was set upon. The search for weapons and other evidence began almost 24 hours after the atrocity.

    **12:15pmAEST Police in Berlin have raised the death toll to 12**

    **11:00amAEST German News website Welt.de are reporting that the truck driver came to Germany as a refugee.**
    **8:30amAEST UPDATE: Co-driver dead while driver was arrested at Victory Column**

    **8amAEST UPDATE: Suspect has been arrested.**

    Truck ploughs into crowd at Christmas market.

    Police on the ground say early investigations point to a deliberate attack.

    Early reports state 9 people have been killed, at least 50 injured.

    Driver reportedly still at large.

    Is it time for Angela Merkel to have another sit down with the German people and lecture them on “Islamophobia”?

    Paul Joseph Watson recently posted this video: What the politically correct media won’t tell you about the attack in Berlin