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.

 

How it will go down-- a realization!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I just had a realization... The bulk of US troops are being deployed in the Middle East, and with impending action against Syria, more will be on the way. In the area, Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, Israel already has them, Russia has many missing, and India and Pakistan both have them pointed at eachother. Additionally, the missing chemical weapons left over from Saddam's regime have yet to be found, and they do exist... the US provided them during the Iraq-Iran War. Troops will continue to build up in the most volatile region in the world.

Which leads me to the realization-- To defeat the US military and usher in the New World Order, complete with foreign/UN/world government troop occupations, all that needs to happen is for the armies in the Middle East to be decimated. The best way to do this would be a massive attack with WMD's. The leaders of the region have shown no regard for the lives of their own citzens, so they would be unlikely to care if many of them died in such an attack, especially if it was their "last ditch effort" to hold off the American advance. It would be much easier for this to happen there than in the home land with the chaos of war and the hostile governments surrounding the forces. With no military, the US will rush to maintain order and stability, and what better way than to impliment the NWO? Western economies would collapse, enemies of the west would be free to act... marshall law and the consolidation of western forces would be the only logical action in this scenario. The cities would be locked down by the remaining and new world forces, and full scale fascism can begin... Could the current use of troops in US cities coinciding with every "threat" or disaster be a prelude to this looming course of events? I certainly don't remember FEMA being deployed fully for EVERY hurricane until this year.

While I'm no staunch Titor believer, would this not fit totally with his descriptions of an event in the Middle East at the beginning of the Civil War? Also, his discussion of Russia and China targetting the cities because that is where the "enemy," i.e. new world forces, will be fits with this scenario... Titor may be a hoax, but it's realizations like this that draw me back to his posts.

Regardless, this scenario seems VERY possible, and it would seemingly be the only end to the current neverending conflict.




posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Personally I think if the NWO is real and is comming its going to be ushered in with a a whimper rather then a bang. No war or anything that drastic to give people something to rally against. People often use the boiling frog example here. If you throw a frog into boiling water it will jump out but if you slowly heat the water the frog will stay in till death.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerKint
I just had a realization... The bulk of US troops are being deployed in the Middle East

I don't think its the bulk of troops.

Interview in 1-2004
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991;
130,000 Army troops are in Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.

Lets call it 500,000 Army, with 140,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the bulk.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

As of January 2005, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000.




If you look at somethign a little more "hard core", there are apparently 37 Combat Brigades in the Army, with only 12 deployed worldwide, let alone in the middle east itself. 10 in iraq, 1 in afghanistan. There are also, as that page notes, 2 brigades that are being converted to Stryker brigades, so lets pretend that that ups the number to 14. Still not even half.

The US still has a capacity to engage in global operations.

With the National Guard, of 39 Combate Brigades, 4 are deployed outside the US, with 3 in iraq.

It depends on precisely what you are looking at, but its not the bulk of the military.




Troops will continue to build up in the most volatile region in the world.

Most likely, yes. But you'd need to put 10 of these brigades into Iran, and you'd still have something like half to muck around with.


The best way to do this would be a massive attack with WMD's.

This, of course, requires that they can actually successfully mount such an attack.


especially if it was their "last ditch effort" to hold off the American advance.

Who are you figuring is the NWO in this scenario?




While I'm no staunch Titor believer, would this not fit totally with his descriptions of an event in the Middle East at the beginning of the Civil War?

Sure, but so would a lot of things.


Regardless, this scenario seems VERY possible,

Its not plausible to suggest that the entire US military is defeated in the Field.


and it would seemingly be the only end to the current neverending conflict.

If the US military was annihilated in the field, there'd still be the threat of global thermonuclear war to protect the US from invasion and attack.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I think the thinking is going the right direction there, however I believe that the American troops (or at least some of them) are going to be involved in the NWO take over. I believe that the NWO has people infiltrated into the highest levels of the military (including the President) and that they will just use these men to take over. I stand firm on my belief that the country will declare Martial Law on a lot larger scale and from there will have the troops around the country to enforce it, and from that point who is to say we will ever be taken out of Martial Law. The war in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the NWO, but as of right now I am unsure of what. The answer is there somewhere, I feel we are getting close.

Peace,
Dave



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Why do people always think US troops are mindless drones? Like some kid from bumscrew, kansas is going to waste his family and neighbors on an order.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Because a lot of them are. I doubt they will stand up to their leaders before standing up to us?

I liked how they did a study years back on Cops how they had to lack a certain smarts if you will to be a cop due to a point of brain reworking for the job. I know I did a poor explanation but makes sense for people on the front lines cops,army etc..
If anyone knows the study I speak of please post more detailed account.



Originally posted by Ray Davies
Why do people always think US troops are mindless drones? Like some kid from bumscrew, kansas is going to waste his family and neighbors on an order.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I'm not saying that most of them are...however....do they have a choice!!?? It is kind of hard to not obey an order and have a good life outside of the military after being dishonorably discharged.
Peace,
Dave



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Personally I think if the NWO is real and is comming its going to be ushered in with a a whimper rather then a bang. No war or anything that drastic to give people something to rally against. People often use the boiling frog example here. If you throw a frog into boiling water it will jump out but if you slowly heat the water the frog will stay in till death.
Great post might I add.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Nygdan, thank you for the clarifications. You have relieved some of my worries about a scenario like this. Losing the troops there could still be a blow though, and the beauty of WMD's- nuclear, chemical, or biological- is that it doesn't take a well coordinated attack. It takes a well placed attack, say Baghdad. The use of a nuclear weapon in the Middle East would also draw a response from the US, and I would venture to guess our current leadership would consider fighting fire with fire. Granted, I would certainly hope they would get the troops out first. However, the threat of a rogue state with nuclear deployment capabilities, especially a "terrorist" state, may draw an immediate and substantial response. That would also be a wonderful way to erase any evidence of NWO involvement, whoever the NWO may be.

In my opinion, the NWO, the idea behind the theories, is so brilliant and possible because of its ambiguity. While we see Bush and company now, I guarantee you he will not be the ultimate ruling force. Whoever "they" are, they showed us through 9/11 and the following few years what they are obviously capable of orchestrating. Extending that into the future, I see only escalation unfortunately. This would be merely one step, just as 9/11 was one step, the debacle in New Orleans was one step, and the Iraq war is one step.

As for our troops, I hope they are by and large moral individuals at the end of the day. However, if anyone thinks life in the civilian world has carefully guided brainwashing, multiply that many times over for the US military. And the modern US military forces, sadly, lack what one might call "intelligence." While some may be grounded, moral, thinking individuals, many are mere drones, cogs in the military machine. Further, they are told, they are ENGRAINED with the notion that if they are given an order, they follow it by damn. In a time of war, disobeying orders is considered treasonous, no less. No, I would not put much faith in the US military's free thinking in a time of crisis never before seen on this planet.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
According to Pam Schuffert, a good 70% of American troops would NOT fire on fellow American citizens. So just ship them out to fight Bush's wars and bring in foreign troops.

But even with foreign troops, how would you put the entire country, as huge as it is in terms of square miles, under martial law? Then there are Alaska and Hawaii--not part of the contiguous US. There would have to be a LOT of them, I would think.

Or am I missing something?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I agree with you on the use of foreign troops if marshall law was indeed declared. As for the size of the nation, it indeed would be impossible to police the entire area. However, they really wouldn't need to. The majority of the population has gravitated to urban and suburban areas, those would be the areas under active marshall law. Rural areas would probably be portrayed as chaos, unprotected and lawless. Regardless of what it may realistically be like in those areas, all the government would need to do would be to convince the public that they NEED the government to protect them. Katrina and the following influence of FEMA in every disaster I see as just programming people to always look to the federal level for help and to blame in times of crisis. I personally was in four hurricanes when I lived in the northeast, and there was zero FEMA/federal involvement in the cleanup that I am aware of. People cleaned up, rebuilt, and moved on with life. Now, we are a nation of victims, or at least the media programs us as such, begging for help, begging for the government to be larger and more powerful to save us from everything from bird flu to hurricanes to terrorism. It is sad, but I feel that many would welcome the "security" of marshall law and would gladly rat out those who would speak out against it.

As for Alaska and Hawaii, it really wouldn't matter what happens with them. Their populations are small, and as you said, they are geographically isolated from the majority of Americans. They might see military installations and resource infrastructure (Alaska pipeline) locked down, perhaps some controls in the small areas of semi-dense population. I've been to Alaska many times... it would be absolutely impossible to control anything there, there is simply too much land area for people to flee to. There is one highway from the continental US to Alaska, very easy to blockade it, preventing any movement in or out of the state. And Hawaii, well, all it would take would be a lockdown/suspension of flights to and from the islands to completely isolate them from the rest of the world.

While not the most reliable of sources, this recent clip hints at the future of the military and the level of control their commanders will soon have over their minds. And really, while 70% may claim to not be willing to FIRE on Americans, I would suspect they would be perfectly fine with policing the populace if ordered. In a case like that, if they are met with resistance, the "rebels" would be treated as treasonous. Would these soldiers have the moral ability to make judgments about the line between civil disobedience and rebellion? If they chose to protect the constitution, they themselves would be cast as traitors for disobeying the order to maintain control.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

But even with foreign troops, how would you put the entire country, as huge as it is in terms of square miles, under martial law?

Or am I missing something?


I dont think it can be done if the majority of the population was against it, not with some 260 million guns floating around the US. That large of a armed population would just be a nightmare for any occupation force. With alot of troops perhaps the best you could hope to do is control key major cities, ports and the like across the US. Even that would be a nightmare imagine Iraq insurgency times 100



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Don't forget you also have the UN pushing for disarmament.
What you have to look out for is churches promoting disarmament as well. In the Bible it even says that if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

And if we ever have a Constitutional Convention--LOOK OUT.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I agree with Amethyst, the only way is if we let them disarm us. I often wonder if part of the reason for Iraq was to test how hard it would be to hold and occupied country down. Even if it were not part of the operation it definatly shows that an armed US populace cannot be held captive for long.

We are strong!



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
And you saw what went on with the gun-grabbing in New Orleans. Fortunately a Louisiana court had the sense to tell them to knock it off.

I for one don't want my town to be a copy of NOLA.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Can we stop sensationalizing the NWO? People are greedy and evil. There are very rich international businessmen that have influence on Governments. It is here and has been happening all along. It started with blatant monarchies, which still exist. We are constantly controlled. It just keeps intensifying. No time like now to fight it.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
First off, it wasn't the U.S. that sold Iraq the chemical weapons for the war with Iran. As a matter of fact, we supplied them with very little weapons compared to other nations (you know which ones they are).

Regardless, the Arab nations are not really in line with the whole NWO thing. Thing about it is, the U.S. troops will be expected to patrol the world in a few areas, and you see them being stationed in some of those areas already. I wouldn't really expect to see the U.S. forces decimated.

You are correct in that there will either be a situation or a seriosu of situations that will set up the final positioning of the One World Order. I'm sure the situation(s) will be very dramatic, as Henry Kissinger noted that all is needed for Americans to gladly give up there liberties is the right scenario.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
They've created the "sheeple" state.

www.cnn.com...

"All that time. This is all we get?" asked 23-year-old Fanie Aristil, speaking to The Associated Press after waiting nine hours for the supplies.

"What are we supposed to do? We're supposed to count on FEMA. It's disgusting," resident Nilsa Colon said.


All I can say is what were they doing the 2 weeks before it when it was on the news 24/7 with updates. Couldn't even buy some water or food? Create a state where people depend on .gov in a disaster and you have a mass of enslaved people.

In full fledge martial law in the United States that will be the final dager into brining in the NWO and you can bet they will use foreign troops. The UN will be the key player in enforcing martial law in the United States. Of course news laws will have to be placed until then so they can get it ready. Gun control/confiscations will be the big one along with continuing lost of privacy, ID tracking cards(Real ID Act), spying on US citizens who pose a threat to their agenda(www.msnbc.msn.com...)(www.dawn.com...), censoring media declaring websites that expose their agenda as "hate" speech, and keeping the people in a state of fear.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   


Create a state where people depend on .gov in a disaster and you have a mass of enslaved people.


Of course, you would need a very big disaster to do it to the entire of america, unless you could make a very big claim that yellowstone would explode in a matter of days, actually have it explode, and then you could do pretty much anything, as everthing within a thousand km would be destroyed, and the rest of america/Canada/Mexico would be covered in ash.

That would probably do it...



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Don't forget Cali's next big earthquake.
Manufacturers shipments, 1997 ($1000) 379,612,443 3,842,061,405
Retail sales definition and source info Retail sales, 1997 ($1000) 263,118,346 2,460,886,012

The first numbers(in hunders of millions x $1000) are California's vs. the bigger numbers which are total US(x $1000).

-So basically California, at least back in '97, was approxamitely 10% of US economy.
-It's probably more now.

What would happen if the majority of California went into chaos? Just a thought worthy of bringing up when talking about NWO scenarios.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Prodicaliforniason]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join