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.

 

The UN officially declared the beginning of World War III

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I personally found the title a bit speculative and deductive. Yes, when you read the following you can come to the conclusion that this is the idea of the speech but there was no literal saying that the WWIII has began. The reason why i brought it here is to see if my perception is wrong and how it would be perceived by the other members.


The chairman of the Security Councils of the United Nations, Raimonda Murmokaite, officially declared from New York on Wednesday that after World War II ended, several countries have declared against the forces called itself Islamic State or ISIS.

An association of countries was held includes: The U.S, Russia, Germany, France, Iran and Iraq. All member had agreement together to destroy ISIS after they attacked France and Lebanon.

According to the Security Councils of the UN, the war which involves five countries or more is considered a World War.


greenlifes.net...

So basically, according to the news which refers to Security Councils of the UN, a world war is considered as such when 5 or more countries are involved.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




edit on 2-12-2015 by Rosinitiate because: Not even gonna ask



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

I can see why you would think that.

Certainly looks like pushing the idea into peoples minds to prepare them.



The world has lost its collective mind.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
it's not true , this guy explains this perfectly:




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos
I don't imagine that the United Nations has ever had reason to form an "official" definition of a "world war".
The Second World War (and retrospectively, the First World War) was named by Winston Churchill in the middle of it, after a paper from one of his civil servants offered a number of suggestions.
They keep those names by general consensus, rather than because they fit any official definition.

Many wars in history have had five participants. From memory, I'm pretty certain that the Ottomans had at least four opponents in the two Balkan Wars which preceded WW1.

The United Nations has only got one Security Council, and no official yet has ever declared war on a country single-handed, let alone promised an immediate armed attack.
I think we should assume that this speech was never made.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

The U.N didn't exist until '45. Coincidentally it was set-up to prevent another WW.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
They should rework their definition, with coalitions of countries involved in various (comparatively) minor conflicts such as the Iraq War, practically any conflict would be considered a "World War."

Wikipedia: List of Countries Involved in Iraq War

The opposing side (ISIS in this case) needs to be able to fight back. I will agree that ISIS targets civilians (easy targets), which is a very cowardly way of waging war, but they cannot fight back against Russia, the U.S. and other countries and expect to claim a military victory.
edit on 02amWed, 02 Dec 2015 10:17:03 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



However, they do have one thing going for them: many are RV, truck and car camping friendly. Walmart is one of the few retailers that allow you to stay in their parking lot overnight. When you are on a long road trip and can't find any rest stops or campgrounds along your route, Wal-Mart starts looking pretty good.


Google Search
edit on 02amWed, 02 Dec 2015 10:24:29 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


More information on Wal-Mart camping
edit on 02amWed, 02 Dec 2015 10:26:16 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006
Yes, true. I don't think that point has any impact on my own observations.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I think it does.

The U.N as the organisation set-up to prevent another world war are exactly who should be defining world wars.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006

The world losing it's collective mind occurs on a regular basis, roughly around the time the people who experienced the last world war die off.

Those who run the world know exactly what is going on.

You are not taught the truth you need to know in school.

If one does not actively try to prevent negative events from occurring and actively prepare for them, they passively enable them and passively allow themselves to be swept up into them unaware and unprepared.
edit on 2-12-2015 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Funny I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Would you believe my gf asked me while we were watching a documentary about Hitler recently, "Who won that war?"

......I was lost for words.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006
The founders would have described its purpose as preventing wars in general. though the immediate motivation would have been "prevent another war like the one we've just had".
Nothing in the way the U.N. works obliges it to make use of any distinction between world wars and other kinds of war, so they've had no reason to generate a definition.

The definition is supposed to be in the bylaws of the U.N. I've just googled "United Nations" and "bylaws", with no matches, except that the "Association of former employees of the United Nations" and similar social bodies do have bylaws.

Furthermore, the premise of the original report is obviously "If the United Nations declares an 'official' world war, then the United Nations can declare war immediately and launch an immediate attack off its own bat".
This premise is complete nonsense, and therefore the whole story has to be complete nonsense.




edit on 2-12-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

OMFG - the lawyers have won.

5 countries against each other, I'll accept as WWIII.

5 countries against the biggest badass bogeyman money and oil can buy, I will not accept as WWIII

But, if it means an increase in weapons manufacturing and sales, and death, and reduction in freedoms, who am I to stand in the way of the New World Order.



*sticks fingers in ears in denial* la la la la la la la la la...........



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006

The hard part is the waiting to be free to go all "viking" before one becomes too old.......

The majority of My fellow American's are too physically soft, morally bankrupt or just plain ignorant (maybe just too stoooopid?, (maybe too harsh for the PC of them)) to not be swept up in it.

War is like a religion to most without their even realizing it, like a football game where the losing team dies.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I think that they aught to rearrange their definition of a world war. A world war is when a majority of world countries are fighting in the same conflict. NOT half a dozen countries, that's just a minor skirmish.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed
I think people ought to be more sceptical about whether this definition exists.
Evidently "five countries makes an official world war" is going to become one of those internet myths that everybody believes because it gets confirmed by everybody else's belief.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: EA006

The hard part is the waiting to be free to go all "viking" before one becomes too old.......

The majority of My fellow American's are too physically soft, morally bankrupt or just plain ignorant (maybe just too stoooopid?, (maybe too harsh for the PC of them)) to not be swept up in it.

War is like a religion to most without their even realizing it, like a football game where the losing team dies.


It's tragic really. We'll blindly walk into this conflict because people can't be bothered to learn.


I agree with you about the stoopid folks, we have them here too. Lol



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
5 nations involved means a World War then WW3 was in Israel in 1948, WW4 was in Malaya also in 1948, WW5 in Korea in 1950, WW6 in Vietnam, WW7 in the Congo, WW8 in Ethiopia, WW9 in North Yemen. And that does not even get us out of the 1960s. By now we have to be at World War 20 at least.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
5 nations involved means a World War then WW3 was in Israel in 1948, WW4 was in Malaya also in 1948, WW5 in Korea in 1950, WW6 in Vietnam, WW7 in the Congo, WW8 in Ethiopia, WW9 in North Yemen. And that does not even get us out of the 1960s. By now we have to be at World War 20 at least.


LoL .. great answer .. !



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


A world war is a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theatres.

That is a definition of world war right from Wikipedia, and it varies slightly but is very similar in most dictionaries.

How many people do you KNOW that remember the last world war from first hand experience.

The fact you know few is why it will happen again soon.

Societal amnesia, the great forgetting, memories die with the individual along with the warning they would have to offer for those who don't know any better.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join