I trust ZH just slightly more than I trust O
which is to say, ZH occasionally does publish some interesting articles but ZH has such severe biases that I’ve nearly stopped reading it
gotta be VERY careful reading ZH, there are some very peculiar elements writing in it
A sharper military conflict in Syria will not be WW-3, that would have to be defined as full global engagement of the USA and NATO allies with some power capable of the projection of global force. To a limited extent we have that already with militant Islam which means, technically we have a sort of shadow WW-3 with ISIS plus whoever supports ISIS. If that includes assets of the US government then I guess we have a shadow WW-3 covering for a nearly unambiguous civil war (except that no defined entities have declared that they are fighting that civil war).
It’s all a murky situation.
I can’t see Russia risking massive destruction by upping the ante on Syria, but anything’s possible here. You could have a third world war with only limited nuclear exchanges that were probing the will of the adversary. At whatever point that became an all-out nuclear exchange, civil liberties would become a meaningless concept, it would be every man and woman (family) for themselves very quickly.
I found this story on Yahoo News and Reuters u der reporter bylines. Not a ZH hallucination.
They are known as the ‘Stormfront’ of finance sites.