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.

 

A World War Has Begun; Insightful article in the Off-Guardian newspaper by John Pilger

page: 2
42
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: royspeed


and joint war exercises with Australia around the Chinese territorial waters.

The joint war exercise by Australia/USA was a reaction to China's wild ambitions to colonize international waters using artificial islands.

You do know that China herself has sent warships inside USA territorial waters?

But let's ignore that part, let's make it all seem as an unfounded operation by the USA.

I am not saying the USA hasn't done unethical militaristic interventions in the past. I just want to point out the misleading omissions that exists right in your statement - sorry, but that's a lie which is indicative of only one thing: it would seem your "independent investigative journalist" is either biased at best, or a pro-China shill at worst.


edit on 28-3-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I don't agree with everything in the article, but one thing I believe is that we have been entrenched in a major conflict that has been brewing since let's say the 80's to early 90's. I think it's just a world-wide non-conventional war that will last decades, but I think it's reaching a boiling point. I think we should stop looking at these attacks isolated acts of terrorism and more like a war in a clash of civilizations, in which it looks like the West is slowly losing. So, in the enemies eyes this is and has been a "world war" and be probably should be looking at it similarly.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It's hypocrtical propaganda to say that the US is accused of instigating a nuclear weapons race, when since the end of the USSR, the US dismantled its 1980's tech ICBM, and relies on 60's & 70's ICBM's. The US has denuclearized much of its bomber fleet.

While Russia has developed and deployed new design and new production nuclear missiles of very high capability and complains when the US develops a small number of non-nuclear missile interceptors.

China too, but they are quiet about it.

GMAFB.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It's hypocrtical propaganda to say that the US is accused of instigating a nuclear weapons race, when since the end of the USSR, the US dismantled its 1980's tech ICBM, and relies on 60's & 70's ICBM's. The US has denuclearized much of its bomber fleet.

While Russia has developed and deployed new design and new production nuclear missiles of very high capability and complains when the US develops a small number of non-nuclear missile interceptors.

China too, but they are quiet about it.
GMAFB.


I think what Obama said...and hence his Nobel prize, was, "No new nuclear weapons", and I would agree he's stuck to that. But he has The B61 Model 12, the bomb flight-tested last year in Nevada, is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades. So an old type that has been renovated for precision, with maneuverable fins, a brain and variable warheads, and ICBM'S will get a similar treatment...waddayathink? a nuclear device to get terrorists in their lairs, or troops in their bunkers?
Truth is, it doesn't matter what you think, the weapon can be used for either, and I dare say the hawks and doves of the military are bickering about it even now..what goes round, comes round eventually.
Don't forget either that the US still has a formidable amount of weapons already in the arsenal, and It's not a good idea to underplay what they have.
edit on 28-3-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
If I had gotten a penny for every time someone said to me that world war 3 is around the corner, then guess what.

Of course there are always geopolitical conflicts going on. The definition of a world war is also vague.
If you define a world war by characteristics such as seen in the first world war and the second, then I'm to disappoint you because another world war like that is highly unlikely because of nuclear arsenal.

Yes, there is a global geopolitical conflict going on between major superpowers for global dominance and national preservation, in which smaller factions are continuously put against each other to serve the interests of their
backers. But that has been the case since 1945. Hell, even before that.

An all out nuclear war would be destruction for both sides, so they'll most likely refrain from using nuclear arsenal.

I agree that if Clinton becomes the next president of the United States, more conflicts are bound to arise because she is the perfect establishment puppetleader to serve the interests of her backers, foreign and national. Trump is unpredictable.
edit on 28-3-2016 by JohnSmith77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: royspeed

Excellent article. I can't agree with every single point as it seems to be a bit of doom porn on one hand and accurate geopolitical analysis on the other. He raises many good points. Thanks for sharing this OP!



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnSmith77
If I had gotten a penny for every time someone said to me that world war 3 is around the corner, then guess what.

Of course there are always geopolitical conflicts going on. The definition of a world war is also vague.
If you define a world war by characteristics such as seen in the first world war and the second, then I'm to disappoint you because another world war like that is highly unlikely because of nuclear arsenal.

Yes, there is a global geopolitical conflict going on between major superpowers for global dominance and national preservation, in which smaller factions are continuously put against each other to serve the interests of their
backers. But that has been the case since 1945. Hell, even before that.

An all out nuclear war would be destruction for both sides, so they'll most likely refrain from using nuclear arsenal.

I agree that if Clinton becomes the next president of the United States, more conflicts are bound to arise because she is the perfect establishment puppetleader to serve the interests of her backers, foreign and national. Trump is unpredictable.


True it's not easy to tag what's going on as a "World War" because 1 & 2 were conventional, but what's happening now is unconventional by nature so maybe not so easily to define as a World War. Look at what's happening, there's a clear goal for world domination (worldwide Islamic Caliphate) although maybe not attainable, but Hitler had a similar end game - also not attainable. I guess my point is more in the direction of these are more then "conflicts" and isolated terrorr attacks. It's not like the Cold War or how people tend to think WW3 will be another huge conventional war, but what if we think outside the box? A different type of World War?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
I like this part:


Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted exceptionalism is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.


That's what I thought for a while now - that he is the one who is actually less sneaky.

I just have a feeling of her being a good nurse on an abortion clinic. Always kind with smile on her face, leaving women with good memories of the "PROCEDURE". Or a stern nurse taking blood or vaccinating little Africans.

BTW: I like women who can't stand even seing blood. Nurses are scary. People choosing this industry have to be deviant.This and army...)



....Κρίνοντας από το όνομα σου, τολμώ να μαντέψω οτι είσαι ελληνας;;;; Λοιπόν ΖΗΤΏ Η ΕΙΚΟΣΤΉ ΠΕΜΠΤΗ ΜΑΡΤΙΟΥ...Περιμενε...Ζήτω η εικοστή ΌΓΔΟΗ Μαρτίου (?!??!!?)

Anyway, better get back to English since im not sure about rules pertaining to posting in Greek...but I found your comment at the end amusing because it reminds me of a girl i have known since kindergarten whom I was in love with probably 16 years and is still just the most beautiful, intelligent, sweet, high-voiced, sincerely caring girl Ive ever known (other than my mama of course). But she had years of stories from med school that just didn't match what you would think when you see her. Like her second year final exam (to get her medical degree, she has been a surgeon for three years now) when she told me her exam had to do with the inner head and she had to cut her cadavers head open lengthwise like a watermelon and her cadaver was moving too much so she put the head in a vice grip but couldn't stop laughing at how the nose scrunched with the saw or how it looked like it was talking or making funny faces at her as she did the mouth causing her to laugh uncontrollably. Finally she starts flipping through pictures on her phone assuming Id want to see. On the other hand, I couldn't look at a single picture (and didnt thankfully) and I was trying not to dry-heave with my fingers in my ears humming and shaking my head, "no!" I just can't believe this petite beauty is fine with sawing a head completely through, chin to forehead length-wise. I actually know a second girl who is a surgeon and a girl who is a paramedic for trauma/car accidents. In fact, it doesn't even matter to me, male or female. Idon't even understand how a guycor girl can be exposed to that graphic a situation and go home and function at night. Being ok with death and bodies and gore must be one of those things u either have in you or you dont, I for one ain't got it and no amount of school could ever get me numb enough to be a paramedic, doctor, marine in the infantry, etc. Methinks Hillary Clinton IS one of "those" types who aren't truly effected inside by death and senseless violence. As long as she and her chums are still rich and powerful and able to hold themselves as above normal humans, I think shed probably be ok with just about anything and any emotion to the contrary is probably feigned after she's advised to do so by her public reputation people...what are they called again? They work professionally at keeping your image in public positive?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

Has become corrupt? When hasn't a super power been corrupt? Theres always alternative motives behind every action -



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Pilger being Pilger. I'd suspect you could look through most of his writings and find the same theme throughout, so nothing in this that is original by any means.

Doom porn sells and he got that published so he achieved his goal.

He views the world through a far left filter where the enemy is often the good guy and the good guys are always in the wrong. In his world those who would gladly turn the West into a pile of cinders are innocent little lambs. He would disarm the West and leave our enemies armed as I read him.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Understand that it is entirely possible the US will start a war IF the American people elect someone like George Bush who would open the door to sinister neocons who may have already destroyed the world through the horrible ramifications of 911 and the Iraq war…ramifications that are still raging on furiously.


Remember if it weren’t for JFK the US would have started a nuclear war. There were many of his military advisers who were hell bent on starting one over the Cuban missile crises.


So believe me it all depends on who the American people give power to.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I will admit... I am VERY VERY conservative... not in the "fake" way that mean "Republican" or "Tea Party" kinda way, but in the against big government, and .gov spending kind of way. I am inclined to engage in critical thinking...

...and 10 years of training in "applied cognitive psychology" (persuasion, marketing and advertising) has led to the certainty that everything coming out of mainstream "media" is actually propaganda... even when it supports most of my political views.

One thing I am NOT is a "socialist"... although John Pilger probably leans that way. The other thing John Pilger is is intellectually honest, and factually correct in just about everything he has written in this piece.

- The Iraq war WAS a fraud

- Obama IS a fake

- Ukraine WAS overthrown in a CIA operation

- The U.S. IS acting aggressively towards the Soviet state, as if to provoke a global conflict.

- Hillary Clinton (or Ted Cruz) IS more of a threat to the world than Donald Trump

- We really ARE at risk of letting the psychopaths we don't recognize, crap in our nest AGAIN, and then set the whole thing on fire.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

The Iraq war wasn't a fraud as they had found wmd's there...those who were there know this.

Not an Obama fan...but he is real.

You may want to do some actual research on what happened in Ukraine, and why the protests really happened....instead of just believing what CT say.

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but Russia has caused it's own problems...invading sovereign neighbors, causing chaos when they don't get what they want from their former soviet union countries...such as Ukraine and Georgia.

As for Hillary and Cruz...really can't argue with that.

As for the rest...that is politics...why do you think Trump is doing so well...he isn't an establishment cookie cutter candidate.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: royspeed

S&F good article. A lot of people seem to think Trump will ending up getting us into a world war, when in fact neocon Hillary is much more likely to do so, and this illustrates it beautifully. Good find.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: royspeed



Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.


What the author fails to say (along with failing to offer any evidence for anything he claims) is that the cost of maintaining a diminished arsenal is higher now than it has ever been. The cost of making safe and removing missiles from storage is HUGE.

There is absolutely no evidence out there, at all, that the US is building any more nuclear weapons.

Then again, I'm not surprised you all believe this bs, it seems that as long as someone post something you already want to agree with you'll swallow every line, not needing any evidence to support the claims, and without actually doing any digging yourselves.

This is the propagandist preaching to the converted.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dasman888
- The Iraq war WAS a fraud


Please provide evidence of this.
While the Iraq war was never something I agreed with, it really has nothing to do with whether the US is building new Nuclear weapons (it's not, btw)


originally posted by: dasman888
- Obama IS a fake


Well, what an intelligent and thought out argument you present.


originally posted by: dasman888
- Ukraine WAS overthrown in a CIA operation


Proof?
No?
Didn't think so.
And no, YouTube videos and Alex Jones rants are not "evidence".


originally posted by: dasman888
- The U.S. IS acting aggressively towards the Soviet state, as if to provoke a global conflict.


Nope.
The US is working with NATO partners to protect them and itself from a nation which we know, for a fact, invaded another nation and has repeatedly threatened other neighbouring nations.

The burden of proof is being entirely ignored in all your bullet points I see.


originally posted by: dasman888
- Hillary Clinton (or Ted Cruz) IS more of a threat to the world than Donald Trump


*facepalm*


originally posted by: dasman888
- We really ARE at risk of letting the psychopaths we don't recognize, crap in our nest AGAIN, and then set the whole thing on fire.



You see, I had hope at the start of your post where you claimed to be an intelligent and rational true Conservative, then you went off the rails and basically did nothing more than sling around propaganda and bs without any basis in reality or fact.

You claim not to be one of those "Tea Party" crazies, then you sound exactly like one.
I assume you were trying to build some kind of credibility for your opinions with that opening gambit, trying to paint yourself as something other than what you actually are. Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't work on me.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The things the US and western allies have been doing in the world are a direct result of Russian, Chinese, Iran, North Korea are doing

Trying to topple and undermine Western Dominance in the world

So naturally both sides attempt to go after resources and political spheres of influence

This is the war which has been playing out since the close of WWII

If you want to pick a side, just research into which faction better suits your position on the world and your grandchildrens basic right

Russia and China are worlds number one for inequality, environmental abusers, human rights and so on

The west is significantly more advanced in all areas of civilisation, but as somebody mentioned you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, you also have to do a little evil for the greater good

If Russia and China and co constantly challenge the West all over the world, to excerpt there own communist dream on the world then for sure they're going to get a 3rd World War

The reality is WWIII started long ago and has threatened to ignite several times, it's only because of nukes it hasn't, if nukes are rendered obsolete expect a hot war soon after, if lines are crossed expect it sooner and a complete sterilisation of the planet

This war is real, if you open your eyes you'll realise the planet has been a chess board for these powers since the end of WWII

The spread of communism into South America, Asia & the Far East give us the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, The Korean War (North & South Korea)
Taiwan,

The spread of the soviet unions political influence into the Middle East is the underlying problems to current situation today, Saddam was armed to the teeth with soviet weapons, Syria and now Iran who the US used to arm are still stanchant Russian allies

Afghanistan is a resource supply yet to be tapped, but must be controlled, both sides have attempted this hold & contol of this vital piece of the chess board

Venezuela, Cuba, communist punished by sanctions

I don't have the time to be honest but everything that's gone on in this world since WWII is because of this war, trust me EVERYTHING!!!

So people can blame the US/NATO and the western world for whatever they like, but they need to remember they wouldn't be doing any of that if they wasn't being challenged like every other empire or power before

The difference here is the western alliances are a coalitions of nations, the other faction are complete communists through and through



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Two things interest me about this.

One is the rather aggressive bent of Hillary Clinton’s foreign-policy outlook. This, I believe, is well established. She and her people are the hawks of the Obama administration. Pilger says Obama is tooling the US up for a war; Hillary thinks he isn’t aggressive enough towards traditional enemies like Iran... and China. At least, so says New Yorker journalist James Remnick, who seems to get a lot of face time with Barack.*

This worries me. I am not American, but from my distant perspective it seems the only sensible candidate on offer in the coming election is Mrs Clinton. I know many of you disagree; let’s just leave it at that. My point is that — as a citizen of the Rest of the World — a Clinton presidency has worrying implications.

The other interesting thing is quite different. It’s Pilger’s take on Donald Trump, which is implicit in the article but is made quite explicitly in other articles that he has written. Pilger believes Trump really is a stalking-horse for Hillary Clinton. That’s his conspiracy theory: Donald is a joke candidate, designed to fail at the last fence and take the Republican party down with him. Needless to say, I don’t believe this; but John PIlger does.

I find this interesting because what I’ve noticed on ATS lately is a lot of support for Trump and a lot less interest than usual in NWO/Illuminati/Masonic/Bilderberg, etc, conspiracy theories. There’s a cognitive dissonance between the two, you see: if all of pubic and political life is just a concocted fairytale that hides what’s really going on, how come Trump is knocking the whole establishment sideways? Have the puppetmasters lost control?

Pilger resolves the contradiction by making Trump part of the script. Brilliant work. Now it’s okay to believe in the puppetmasters again. And I have to say, he has great hair for a 79-year-old.

Enough serious stuff. I leave you with this musical masterpiece, which will undoubtedly become the theme song of this year’s Republican National Convention. Do listen to the lyrics. And remember, boys and girls, when this becomes an old, hacked joke, who cracked it first.


__________________
*There was a long article in the magazine... I can’t find it online. Maybe one of you can. But it’s a marathon read, ten thousand words or more. Well worth it, though. Barack Obama speaking as frankly as he ever will, I think, to a journalist.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The Globalist agenda might have Trump as their Hillary stalking horse.

Except a clown like Alex Jones whose got things all twisted in making Trump an anti-Globalist.


Trump clearly to many is just too greedy to be a sincere candidate who is out to help the little guy.


His success seems to indicate to some that there must be some plot behind him


Maybe, but we know there’s something behind him: the craziness of the Republican Party base.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I would think that Russia's intel doesn't say all much like the US/NATO covert operations .You can bet a safe dollar that any of the members of the Anglo-American operation could be used to hide from the publics eye what the Russians know what is going on behind the scenes . So you would have to include Britian ,France and Germany in that group as well as others that might be called on to do their part. It might even be considered that the Zionist operations are a large part of the end game .




top topics



 
42
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join