The Big Question.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   
*THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL*

To those in this forum who believe in any of the many versions of the NWO, be it American, European, Both, more or above and beyond all.

Many of you are, or say you are, prepared to take up arms against the NWO. Many would sacrifice themselves to save their families and friends from the NWO. Many who vow themselves against the NWO vouch for starting groups against them, both hidden and public. If any of these NWO versions, as well as those as may be unknown, and if, as all the versions of the NWO seem to state that this is being played out on the world stage and no one and no country is safe, can it not be said that those who are truly standing against the NWO are the terrorists? Are they not the biggest thorn in the side for the completion of a New World Order?




posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 09:22 PM
link   
To the NWO resistnace would technically be terrorism, because acts against them would be interpreted as random violence or terrorism by those in the public unaware of their agenda and presence. Unfortunately since they (isint the use of that word just funny in and of itself?) are usually pulling the strings of governments, portraying resistance as terrorism would make it very easy to justify use of military forces to combat the efforts.



posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Terrorists routinely make statements against Zionism, imperialism, and that the west wants to consume their countries and control them etc. These are usually dismissed as psychotic ramblings, but if you look at them in the context of the NWO arent they stating a resistance to many of the facets of the NWO?
(Still being hypothetical..
)



posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 11:25 PM
link   
When the U.S ( and NWO facets ) pass laws called 'The Patriot Act' to take away our rights....... Of course they will call us Terrorists when we try to resist them.

get organized people. its on....... and happening right in front us.

Donald Rumsfield " We're Not doing enough to fight terrorism!"

uh.... o.k... maybe we should start another war then.....?

Jah.



posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 11:25 PM
link   
There will always be someone rebelling.....



posted on Oct, 22 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Indeed, those standing in the way of the Agenda are considered Terrorist. But, if you have been paying attention to the newest rise in the global turmoil, in my eyes, got its fuel from this present US administration. With the completion of Project Tamahawk, which was one hell of a work of art. It established the US as a dominant force. The entities striking at it are only seeking retribution for gross violations of human rights.
Deny ignorance is the phrase, is it not. The Federalistic government mandates compliance of all, to thier view of it. A very old warning states, "Be of great care of whom it is you chose to hate. For it may be all to soon that you will become as they."



posted on Oct, 23 2003 @ 12:16 PM
link   
FFS people, I'm talking about Al Qaeda and the like, not you lot or psudeo resistence fighters or coloneys of nutters hidden in the hills. If the NWO is being played out on the world stage i.e all over the world, then can it not be said that Al Queda are fighting against the NWO, and in the same fight so many of you protest to be in? I know it's a hard concept to grasp but come on...

[Edited on 23-10-2003 by kegs]



posted on Oct, 23 2003 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Ah, very good question, Kegs!

Yes, technically, we would be terrorists to the establishment, by the current and new definitions. But to others, we would be freedom fighters. One mans terrorists, another mans feedom fighters. Just like Bin laden, who is considered a Hero in the middle east.

But as to fighting the same Cause? No. Bin Laden, while he fights imperialism and Zionism, does so for different reasons. He has his own, shall we say NWO, for lack of a better term, the goal of any religious loon is of course, global dominion by his religion. He wants one world under Islam in the long run, but in the short run, he wants the US out of the Middle east, and israel destroyed totally.

We simply do not want any NWO, no matters whose NWO it is, we prefer nations to remain different, soverign, independant, and, following whatever course they choose.

Bin Laden goes out and attacks other nations with his little hordes of loonies. We, however, when we speak of fighting, would be fighting on oru own soil, since it wouldnt matter what country you were in, they all would be NWO.



posted on Oct, 23 2003 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Ahhh, thank you for a coherent answer Skadi, and one that actually grasps the question, umm apart from your first paragraph, that's not what I'm talking about.

Now it could get interesting. I don't care what people think we or any others in the west would think of those within the wests resistance to (whatever version of) the NWO. The purpose of this question is to make people think; to draw together the very different conclusions they may have for all the different aspects that are affecting us in life. For example the war on terrorism. Does your (Not meaning you Skadi, I mean the universal 'you') opinion on that fit with your opinion on the NWO? You may believe Bush is doing the right thing on Iraq but still believe he is part of the plan of world domination. Doesn't fit. You may believe that the wests way is the right way, religion or politics wise, yet you disagree with a 'way' being enforced on the world. Doesn't fit. You may believe the Medias interpretation of terrorists and also believe the media is lying to you day in, day out. Doesn't fit. This is partly what I'm getting at, the opinion that most have of the terrorists is solely that which our media gives us. Skadki is saying they want to control the world in the long run, much as the NWO does, but what if I read between the lines and see organisations fighting against and to repel an immediately viable threat to their lands and way of life rather than organisations out to do the same to us. Is there any reason that only we would know of the threat of such an NWO? That those in the east and Arabic regions would not have at least an inkling of what was going on? That our media could not give any version of an extremist eastern view that they wish? That the east would not be as virulent in their fight against such an NWO as us?

Or is it that the East has a bigger grasp of the threat than us because they are more at risk; because we are pretty much under control, because their situation and almost frontier logic and law makes them so much more a risk to the objective at hand? Because they are putting up more of a fight than we would ever dreamed of, because they are the ones most at risk?

Remember, Im being hypothetical
(honest)






[Edited on 23-10-2003 by kegs]



posted on Oct, 23 2003 @ 11:53 PM
link   
they would know more...
as they "see" the enemy face to face...
what is a man 2 do?...
is the father going to intervene?...
will alquaida be the first lamb/wolf sacrificed for people to recgonize what is actually going on?...



posted on Oct, 24 2003 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven
To the NWO resistnace would technically be terrorism, because acts against them would be interpreted as random violence or terrorism by those in the public unaware of their agenda and presence. Unfortunately since they (isint the use of that word just funny in and of itself?) are usually pulling the strings of governments, portraying resistance as terrorism would make it very easy to justify use of military forces to combat the efforts.



It's amazing how this "War On Terror" can do so damn much to justify Wars all over the place.



posted on Oct, 24 2003 @ 01:50 AM
link   
now it has been put on a global scale...
take your sides and play your positions...
i for one will not hurt another being for a material possession...
i have my own internal battles to fight...



posted on Oct, 24 2003 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Very good questions, Kegs, and these are things I have spent alot of time contemplating and musing over.

To answer one question: yes, they do see the threat of the NWO, as thier lands are a specific target as far as exploitation. The east, the third world, they can see it because they are out of the forest, they are on the outside looking in, the rejects. Its like me. I have always been somewhat of a social outcast, an oddball, never in any circle, always on the outside looking in. because I was away and out of the collective conciousness of society, sical order, ect, this allowed me to see and percieve things totally invisible to the average Joe Cow, who is spending more time over thier own petty lives. The middle east, the third world, they are capable of seeing what most people in the west are not,m because they can see the forewst and the trees. Of course, since the NWO basically will wipe them out as an independant people and ruin thier soverignty, whether its a Euroo NWO or an American one, they do fight it. Perhaps its also because they arent under the spell of western trinkets such as TVs and the like, so they can see more things for what they are.

However, remeber, what they dislike and fight against and thier concepts and reasons are totally different. Different minds, different cultures. For instance. Part of the reason muslim fundimentalists despise the west, and thuis, the NWO, is because of its percieved moral laxness. Women are a good point to start with, we let women run around in bikinis, miniskirts, makeup. These things are an anethema to the Muslim extremist. Women should be cowed, veiled, and hidden away like a deformed parent from the eyes of society. They fear an overly powerful west could enforce a new laxness of moral standards that rail against thier own. Arab women driving cars, wearing miniskirts, and telling abusive husbands to go # themselves. Thus, as they percieve it, thier own beliefs of thier god would be thrown out the window, and peoples minds dulled, and the dream of Islamic fundie societies would disappear.

They are aware of what the NWO does, and thus fight it. As far as I am concerned, I support thier right to be biggoted misogynists and religious loons, and if they want to create abusive muslim theocracies, its thier right to. Dont expect me to go there for vacation, but other than that, what they do within thier own borders, no matter how vile, is thier business.

This s one of many reasons I oppose NWO: it will end the right of variety. They oppose it because it will end thier right to have thier dream theocracies. They see the NWO in a similar light to christians: a force of Satan and his attempt to take over the world, though thier beliefs are different.

Incidntally, my views onb Muslims and Extremists came from personal experience with them, the media doesnt even cover the tip of the iceberg. Like Christianity, the ultimate goal of Islam is total coversion of the human race to one religion, so you might say, they have thier own NWO. the difference is, generally, they lack the knwoledge, tachnology, and money to pose any real total global threat, at least for now. Thus, they are in the camp of the oppressed, and must be content fighting a battle for thier own survival to avoid being drawn into the NWO, to keep thier religion or identity.

They have this right. They percieve and know what the NWO means for them, and just to exist, they must fight it.

I fight any form of govornment or order within my own sphere that would enforce on code of conduct, one set of beliefs, on religion, one leader, and destroy diversity. Even though Muslim Extremists might find me distateful, immoral, and vile because of who and what I am, we ultimately might fight a similar battle, if nothign else, for the same cause: thier right to be who they are without being assimilated and sanitized. Though Id not fight thier specific war or battle against my own soldiers, my battle is with my govornment, not my citizens. My battle is with any govornment that might destroy diversity and controled chaos.



posted on Oct, 24 2003 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I would take up arms, but all i got is a .22 air rifle! ONly good for small mammals, birds and tin cans! LOL



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'd like to bring this thread back up to see what the new contingent think of the questions. Why? I'm drunk enough not to care.


Seriously though, how do you equate the "war on terrorism" to your perceived fight against the NWO? The W does mean world after all...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
wow, thats a really good point. I never really thought of it that way but i think we would all be considered "terrorists". All the normal Joe guys out there would probably be looking out for their own hides and would consider us "terrorists" because of what the NWO/media tell them. Just my 2 cents



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I will stand up against the NWO. After reading the things Titor said, I might prepare myself to fight, though all I have is a slingshot.
Well I do have a sword in my garage...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Chris;

Yet again it's got nothing to do with that. Read the question again.

Theres plenty of threads full of supercilious bravado and indignation towards imaginary scenarios. Theyre not hard to find. This isn't it.


[edit on 30-12-2004 by kegs]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I think you've got a very good theory there kegs! It kinda reminds me of the phrase "A friend of my enemy is also my enemy. An enemy of my enemy is a friend for now." People should ask themselves just who might you be from the perspective of the so called "NWO". Here are some quotes that certainly help answer this question. It may sound funny to some people when I say, "At least we're in good company." However, after reading the following quotes it should become more clear.

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate
outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
GW Bush speaking before the UN GeGeneral Assembly 11/10/2001

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- President Theodore Roosevelt

"fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
Jim Garrison, New Orleans District Attorney (investigation into JFK death)

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders ... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
- Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering (at the Nuremberg Trials)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin,

So I think it's safe to say that the difference between being a Terrorist and not being a Terrorist is really something much closer to home than many of us think about.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by invader_chris
I will stand up against the NWO. After reading the things Titor said, I might prepare myself to fight, though all I have is a slingshot.
Well I do have a sword in my garage...


Wrong thread, this has nothing to do with the junk titor said...

the world terrorist is not really defined in the Patriot Act, so really, anyone can be seen as a terrorist





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join