It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Actual Start of WW III

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
We are all aware of what happened yesterday in Paris France. As we sit in front of our computers diplomats are meeting in Vienna to discuss the Syrian situation. The bottom line will depend on what France decides to do in response to this latest ISIL attack. If they move to formally declare war and mobilize their armed forces NATO under these circumstances must act or the alliance will fail. An attack upon one is an attack upon all and now there's no longer a question that an attack has taken place.

The world is armed to the teeth and a misstep here can repeat the start of WW I. Except this time the stakes are much higher and the possible survival of our species is on the line.

My guess is that NATO will finally be forced to mobilize and send sufficient military force to the Middle East to overwhelm ISIL and destroy them. I suspect that ISIL fighters will not be captured but that orders will be to shoot and kill every single fighter. It will be costly in terms of lives, money and destruction of anything not already in ruins.

What it may not lead to is a final answer to the question of Syria. This could prolong any conflict in the region until a political settlement is reached among all the parties involved.

Please feel free to render your opinions on what may transpire but please stay on topic. If not the mods will take action.




posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
It will be interesting to see what happens next to say the least. Something tells me it wont be all out war. Hollande and Obama dont have the balls to put troops on the ground to take care of what needs to be taken care of. Truth is, most likely, they will increase bombings, hopefully intel on the ground, and maybe send over another 50 or so special forces advisors to appease the people who think that will actually look like they are doing something. What needs to be done is carpet bombing in isis strong holds and set up ground forces to shoot on sight anybody that is trying to escape those strong holds. The only way to actually defeat an ideology is to get rid of it and they wont get rid of it till they get rid of the people spreading it. Twitter/youtube/facebook ect should shut down over there till its over, that is how the radicals are spreading their views and inspiring individuals around the world.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

My gut-feeling is rather that France might just leave NATO and go it alone. 1st of all to me at least it looks again more like a false flag. Maybe France is the easiest to be swayed by its people to just forget this whole EU/NATO crap and isolate itself. With a strong LePen(SP?) and similar nationalist groups just a few inches below the majority; this could just be the cause for a true "new French revolution" that might just "cleanse" the entire country of "foreign crap" and go its own way. It all depends how the French people will react.
So France is then pivotal in many ways. They had been so already in the 60's with their student revolts. France is and remains a people/nation that can "mood-swing" rapidly between left and right, depending how the wind blows.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

They won't formally declare war because that would legitimize Islamic State , they will no doubt ramp up their air strikes but other than putting boots on the ground their hands are tied.

I think WW 3 started back in 2001 with the Iraq invasion , they were warned by many about what would happen but Bush , Blair and the other criminals ignored the advice and lit a slow burning fuse , things will only get worse.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter

So you are saying this looks like a false flag? So France openly lets Syrian refugees into their country, speaks about how others should let the refugees in and then somehow get a couple to go all jihadi on their own citizens to what end? Occam's Razor my friend, Occam's Razor. It is most seriously likely that the people who did this were jihadi's on their own and infiltrated (easily I might add) France and then decided on retribution for Jihadi John's death, as they said themselves.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Iraq, Libya, Syria...

Idiotic actions. Seriously, no other words to describe it.

They hoped for profit, and instead we're getting killed by the lunatics that they created.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
If Obama would have commmited the resources to fighting this years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. Bush/Blair don't deserve all the blame. a reply to: gortex



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: airforce47

My gut-feeling is rather that France might just leave NATO and go it alone. 1st of all to me at least it looks again more like a false flag. Maybe France is the easiest to be swayed by its people to just forget this whole EU/NATO crap and isolate itself. With a strong LePen(SP?) and similar nationalist groups just a few inches below the majority; this could just be the cause for a true "new French revolution" that might just "cleanse" the entire country of "foreign crap" and go its own way. It all depends how the French people will react.
So France is then pivotal in many ways. They had been so already in the 60's with their student revolts. France is and remains a people/nation that can "mood-swing" rapidly between left and right, depending how the wind blows.


France wont keave NATO. They have to much invested in it. Moreover they are a vital NATO ally.

I dont really see any outcome out of all this. I would love to see NATO troops killing the terrorists but sadly I doubt that will happen. I will have to be content with Russian bombing vids for now



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mdl59

So you're saying don't blame the people who made the mess blame the person that didn't clean it up ?
Don't defend the indefensible.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dizzie56
a reply to: Guenter

So you are saying this looks like a false flag? So France openly lets Syrian refugees into their country, speaks about how others should let the refugees in and then somehow get a couple to go all jihadi on their own citizens to what end? Occam's Razor my friend, Occam's Razor. It is most seriously likely that the people who did this were jihadi's on their own and infiltrated (easily I might add) France and then decided on retribution for Jihadi John's death, as they said themselves.


My rule of thumb is simply this: IF civilians are hurt its a false flag government action ( See Operation Gladio)
If the government is hurt, Cops/soldiers/intelligence officers/politicians etc. are killed, then it is an armed resistance of some sort by a given entity.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Not only did he not clean up, but he made things worst truth to be told. Not just him, but the west as a whole.

I mean, arming terrorists and basically trying to control them is just dumb. Not to mention cooperation with the countries that fund terrorists.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: asen_y2k

France left NATO in the 1960's for some time. So they got "experience" how to screw with NATO if they want to.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter




My rule of thumb is simply this: IF civilians are hurt its a false flag government action ( See Operation Gladio)

Wow ! , you may want to reassess that rule.
Just sayin.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter

originally posted by: dizzie56
a reply to: Guenter

So you are saying this looks like a false flag? So France openly lets Syrian refugees into their country, speaks about how others should let the refugees in and then somehow get a couple to go all jihadi on their own citizens to what end? Occam's Razor my friend, Occam's Razor. It is most seriously likely that the people who did this were jihadi's on their own and infiltrated (easily I might add) France and then decided on retribution for Jihadi John's death, as they said themselves.


My rule of thumb is simply this: IF civilians are hurt its a false flag government action ( See Operation Gladio)
If the government is hurt, Cops/soldiers/intelligence officers/politicians etc. are killed, then it is an armed resistance of some sort by a given entity.


So your rule of thumb completely ignores that terrorists routinely go after soft targets because they're soft. And ignores that by attacking soft targets, they're trying to influence the actions of the government.

What a nice and tidy "method" of classification.

Ludicrous, but tidy.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: asen_y2k

France left NATO in the 1960's for some time. So they got "experience" how to screw with NATO if they want to.


I did not know that, thanks fr the info. But at present what beef does France have with NATO. Infact they have more to gain by calling up the NATO charter.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter

That's just wrong. Might have been applyable 14 years ago, but not anymore.

Whoever once helped the Taliban is not relevant anymore. Isis are killers murderers and just terrorists.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
A couple of things are very weird.
First:
IS seems to be a very illusive group. We never get to see any of them...except for the dead Jihadi John, who got himself killed (apperently!).
Second:
The bomb attack OUTSIDE Stade de France yesterday. President Hollande was attending the game ... IS seems to have known but yet the socalled IS members blow themselves to bit, not once but twice OUTSIDE the stadium.
I find that to be very, very weird.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Any sane person who really wants to get something done will be labled 'racist' and shouted down by thosde who just refuse to see " none so blind as those who refuse to see" an old very true saying.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
WW III started August 2nd 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, everything since has happened as a consequence.

-MM
edit on 14-11-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: airforce47

You cannot declare war on something that doesn't exist, as far as I am aware nobody has recognised Islamic State as anything but a name of an organized terrorist group.

WWI and WWII were unique in that they were clashes of the titans, the great war more so. With nukes being on the cards I don't think we will ever see wars like that again. In fact, in my opinion WWIII began with the full surrender of Axis power. Since then the world has been in a war of attrition and influence.

China has slowly but surely influenced everyone around them to become Chinese, it produces for everyone and is colonizing Africa.

The US dollar is the world currency.

Anglo-American oil/gas companies control the flow of the worlds blood.

Why destroy the world when you can conquer it another way?

In my opinion WWIII won't start by the world wiping out a wannabe rogue state, if we ever see a world war it will be when a nation with absolute influence is seriously threatened. And why would a superpower destroy itself in spite? Surely it's easier to tie up your adversaries in problems like.... North Korea or Ukraine?

I hope we see a step up on the pressure that's applied to ISIS, I really do. But it's not going to be any good without Arab boots on the ground and at the moment nobody wants to make that first move.



new topics




 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join