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: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Just to add some more logic to you post:

Look up the Seven-Years War as a good example of a world war, before the names World War 1 or World War 2 were ever used. Since the age of empires, major wars have become global efforts.

Both World War 1 and World War 2 were named after the wars had started. Almost all wars are named after they have started.

This article makes no sense. The. U.N. has no reason to define the idea of world war because it is a self-explanatory statement. Also, the main goal of the U.N. is to prevent war not to declare war and give that war a name.

History gives names to wars, not the people starting them.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
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.

Quite so, but it's a "general consensus" definition, as you might find in a dictionary, rather than anyone's "official definition".
The fact that the article doesn't even attempt to offer the latter is enough to squash the report quoted in the OP.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

Didn't Albert Pike name them? Maybe I'm wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: EA006

On the naming of the World Wars

Seem's people were talking about World War 2 years before it happened, but it was Roosevelt in 1941 that made it official.

Both times a War has been called a "World War" was because America entered and America propaganda seems to want to make a big deal out of this fact. In fact, Britain called World War one, "The War" until the 1940's.

Looking at non-western nations, we can find that some cultures do not call them that even today. The name of a war is just that, "A NAME".

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
In fact, Britain called World War one, "The War" until the 1940's.

Frequently "The Great War".

On an historical note, the British official naming came like this;

On 22 June 1944 Sir Edward Bridges had asked Churchill how the two world wars should be described. Bridges' suggestions were "War of 1914-18" and "War of 1939-4?"; "First World War" and "Second World War"; or "Four Years War" and Five (or six, or seven) Years War. Churchill had chosen First World War and Second World War".

IMartin Gilbert's biography of Churchill, Vol VII, p894, note 3.
(Sir Edward was the Cabinet Secretary, which explains the question)
I love that story as a classic example of civil service "guidance" of a politician, by sandwiching the desired option between two options which were quite unworkable.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Love the info.

Just goes to our point, it will be the future biographies of Presidents and Prime Minsters that name some set of conflicts World War 3.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
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.


geez.....then the conclusion reached by most guys reading this, would be that she must be really hot looking.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well, didn't Turkey just recently shoot down the Archduke Ferdinand jet? It was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand, that was credited for starting WWI. It does seem that World War is a recurrent theme lately.
edit on 2-12-2015 by BELIEVERpriest because: Black Hand was not Turkish



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
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.


I also had a similar moment at university in a media lecture and someone asked ' Where is Nazi Germany?'

Doh!

The same girl said we should have done cosmetic testing on Saddam. I cringe for my generation, and definitely think they let anybody in university now.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
In fact, Britain called World War one, "The War" until the 1940's.

Frequently "The Great War".

On an historical note, the British official naming came like this;

On 22 June 1944 Sir Edward Bridges had asked Churchill how the two world wars should be described. Bridges' suggestions were "War of 1914-18" and "War of 1939-4?"; "First World War" and "Second World War"; or "Four Years War" and Five (or six, or seven) Years War. Churchill had chosen First World War and Second World War".

IMartin Gilbert's biography of Churchill, Vol VII, p894, note 3.
(Sir Edward was the Cabinet Secretary, which explains the question)
I love that story as a classic example of civil service "guidance" of a politician, by sandwiching the desired option between two options which were quite unworkable.


"Civil Service Guidance"- Cue Yes, Minister theme music. That show appears to crazily very close to the truth.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MrsNonSpecific
Yes, it's the same technique used in the episode about selecting bishops.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Well, didn't Turkey just recently shoot down the Archduke Ferdinand jet? It was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Turkish, 'Black Hand', that was credited for starting WWI. It does seem that World War is a recurrent theme lately.

No, the assassination was the Serbians.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Oops. Thanks for the correction



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: DISRAELI

Oops. Thanks for the correction


And the poor Ostrich died for nothing.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Report of men undressing from black clothing at Hunt's Lane overpass...

www.google.com...=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80dcac8b8538b3bb:0xb6522e63a23e2d5d?sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7xJ3Lhb7JAhUC9 h4KHbRzBvUQ8gEIGzAA
edit on 2-12-2015 by FlyingFox because: freedom



A train track runs through there...
edit on 2-12-2015 by FlyingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos

Ok I'll ask it ... Wasn't it a Nostradamus quatrain that said the bear and the eagle will unite to fight some turban wearing antichrist and mark the beginning of the third Great War?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
What is up with all the wild clams?

It's like every one has lost their damn mind.

Like people want a world war.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

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.


Well, you have to look at things from all perspective ... let us assume, that ISIS has people in there who are really fighting "for" their own state. Then, considering the war in Iraq, and Syria ... there are probably thousands of people, who would fall under the category of "traitors" in ISIS views. You and I, may not agree to their tactics, but it doesn't mean they don't have a reason for them.

The part of them not being able to win against the US/UK/France (NATO) is not really true. The US has been loosing there for over a decade.

Just because you win all the battles, doesn't mean you win the war.

It all depends on weather ISIS are "stooges", that is a US creation ... or an arm of Al Qaida, or weather they are real, and whatever we see on television is just another episode of "bin Ladin on TV, giving US another reason to war in the ME for the benefit of Saudi".

Another thing you have to consider here ... France, UK, Germany and the US going down to the middle east ... isn't about fighting some ISIS dudes, because they made a terrorist act in Paris. We had a Norwegian guy going berserk on an Island in Norway, killing sprees left and right in all countries where people have been killed by maniacs of all classes and races. That ISLAMIC STATE takes responsibility for anything, does not mean they actually did it or planned it ... but the bottom line is, these war clans ... US/UK/France/Germany/Russia are not there because of some minor group called ISIS.

France, Britain and Germany going down there along with US ... is just a continuation of "war on terror" ... it's a no brainer. As they themselves are the worlds largest terrorists ever.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI



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.


Wrong! UN forces invaded and attacked North Korea to stop their drive into South Korea after WWII. That was a UN operation, not just the U.S.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: DISRAELI

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



Yeah , they have truly accomplished that , huh ? Lets see , I guess the lack of any action whatsoever constitutes the statement preventing another world war. Maybe it would be a good idea (if not the best) for them to continue their long history of inaction. (well , rather than the inception of the state of Israel) .





top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join