The T in N.A.T.O.

we all heard of NATO.

but what exactly does it stand for.

officially THEY claim its means: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

lets examine that sentence.

my english treacher is a bit of conspiracy theorist.
he always comes up with unsual theories behind government activities.

he was discussing purpose why this organisation was formed.

why is the use of the word "Treaty" in there.

just think about that for a minute: why say "Treaty Organisation"

treay is a treaty. it is not an organisation. a treaty establishes an organisation.

so, why not say North Atlanic Defence treaty,
or simply North Atlantic Treaty, or even North Atlantic Organisation?

why must it be North Atlantic "Treaty" Organisation.

the name doesnt make sense. there is something wrong with the sentence.

yes ok we know there was a signiture there. so what. why tell us about it?

would it not have been better to simply say NADO - North Atlantic Defence Organisation?

once have think about it, we see that that "T" does not really stand for "Treaty".

they have hidden the real meaning from the public. it was too scary.

we know that it is an organisation created to SCARE the
communist Soviet Union after World War II.

they used a new military doctrine known as Mutually Assured Destruction. M.A.D.

both sides, America and Russia, wanted to terroise each other so much
that none of them would dare not attack first out of fear of being completely destroyed.

they had to create a terror institution.

and thats what the "T" actually stands for. Terror Organisation. and it worked for 50 years.

it was created simply to terrorise any group or nation which
threatens the security of any one of the countries that agreed on common defence.

and if you look at it, that is exactly what it is doing today.

after 9/11, it was activated to terrorise the terrorists.

however, a more mild and acceptable term "Shock and Awe" was used for same purpose.

its activities are creating a less secure world.
there is rise of fear across the world. threat of terror is increasing.

mysterious bombers, masked men, sudden explosions,
unknown groups, secret prisons, no due process of law. no open courts,
simply detain people forever, deny rights to prisoners, mysterious evidences,
do not bring the bombers before a civilian judge, secret trials, and so on.
all this is breading fear and terror.

N.A.T.O. probably the biggest terror group ever created in the history of mankind.

north atlantic terror organisation.

unfortunately, unlike the russians, the extremists were not scared.
they fought back. which is why we see a disaster in Iraq.

now they admit that the organisation has failed its true purpose,
and so there is now talk of dismantling it.





[edit on 15-11-2006 by mr conspiracy]

I always thought that NATO was the Organisation formed following the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty? In which case the name does make sense...

Anyway, most NATO members disapprove of the US and UK actions in Iraq

Correct.


The Treaty Begins:

The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

And it then carries into the 14 Articles of the North Atlantic Treaty.

To be honest, the Soviets wouldn't have given a damn what it was named. It was its purpose, i.e. a unified West against the possible aggression of Stalin, that acted as a deterrent.

NATO sounds better than NAO or NAT, obviously!

Nice work for bringing this up, mr. conspiracy, but perhaps there are some more plausable therioes out there to be thought of?
I agree with Essan.

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
NATO sounds better than NAO or NAT, obviously!

And especially NADO!

The organization is there to implement the treaty, therefore it makes total sense to me that it'd be callted the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

edit:

BTW, Your English teacher should be teaching you English, not stuff like this.
If you recorded a lesson that said this and gave it to the press, it'd make national headlines!

[edit on 11/15/2006 by djohnsto77]

NATO really doesn't have a connection to the US's War on Terror, because it opposes it. And BTW, I don't think the Soviets were so much scared as they were thinking logically. Just because they were commy pigs doesn't make them idiots. We had enough nukes to blow up the world two times over, literally. And that was just us. Do you know what a nuke really does? It's a lot worse than one would think. It was just common sense for the Soviets to not attack.

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
NATO really doesn't have a connection to the US's War on Terror, because it opposes it.

Where do you get that idea from? NATO is in command of the war in Afghanistan...

There is an english lesson there. It should properly read 'The North Atlantic Treaty's Organization'.

But alas, who wants to be proper? When it sounds so unpleasant.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Where do you get that idea from? NATO is in command of the war in Afghanistan...

Sorry...Let me rephrase. Most of the countries associated with NATO don't support the war. Yes, NATO itself technically is in control of it. I was just saying that most countries in it don't support it. The idea of NATO was for us to make it a law that if one of us gets attacked/invaded, we all pitch in and help.

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
we all heard of NATO. ………………officially THEY claim its means: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation……………………lets examine that sentence.

lets ……….. down the rabbit hole we go

my english treacher is a bit of conspiracy theorist.
he always comes up with unsual theories behind government activities.

Maybe he should teach you English , instead of filling your head with idiocy .

I do not mean to be rude , and I normally avoid criticism of others English , as mine is usually appalling . But as your have invoked your English teacher as an authority for this argument – I am compelled to note that your English is diabolical

He has not done a very good job teaching you English , has he ?

just think about that for a minute: why say "Treaty Organisation"

because it is the organization formed to uphold the treaty – maybe your “ English teacher “ should go back to school for logic 101 .

it is really quite basic English – and so it beggars belief that an “ English teacher “ is having such difficulty understanding it .

treay is a treaty. it is not an organisation

At last , some sense , even though this glimmer of rational thought contradicts your other “ arguments “

That is why it is the “treaty organization” : i.e. an organisation to uphold the treaty

. a treaty establishes an organisation.

No it does not – a treaty establishes an agreement , which its signatories pledge to abide by and uphold

There are many treaties which did not spawn organizations – the “ treaty of Tripoli “ springs to mind .

Also treaties that do foster the formation of organizations , i.e. the “ treaty of Rome “ , which was the bedrock of the EEC are not required to be linked to the treaty name

so, why not say North Atlanic Defence treaty,

Because the north Atlantic treaty has elements other than defence – have you actually read it ???

North Atlantic Treaty,

The north Atlantic treaty exists too – it is the foundation agreement – the north Atlantic treaty is both the spirit of the agreement , and the printed document .

The text of the north Atlantic treaty is available online – try reading it

Then attempt to find the text of “ NATO “ – you cannot have a text of an organization – because an organisation is comprised of entities , a treaty is comprised of statements and clauses .

Is this clear to you yet ?

North Atlantic Organisation?

Because there is only one “ north Atlantic “ A north Atlantic orgaisiation would have to comprise multiple “ north Atlantics “

Or it would if we follow the “ logic “ that you have used

why must it be North Atlantic "Treaty" Organisation.

Why not ??

Because it makes perfect sense to every one else , despite the illogical delusions of you and your “ English teacher “

the name doesnt make sense. there is something wrong with the sentence.

The name makes perfect sense , and there is nothing wrong with it

yes ok we know there was a signiture there. so what. why tell us about it?

What ?? where does it mention a signature ??? NATO acronym tells rational people that it is the organisation founded to uphold the north atlantic treaty

It is quite simple .

would it not have been better to simply say NADO - North Atlantic Defence Organisation?

No , because a north Atlantic defence organization – would if we are nit picking so what exactly ??

As you are being picky – NADO would have a single purpose :

Defend the north Atlantic …What about the countries surrounding it ??? Screw them – the ocean is safe ………… HUSSAR :p

once have think about it, we see that that "T" does not really stand for "Treaty".

Your “ logic “ is so erroneous it hurts my head

If your “ English teacher “ put you up to this , I seriously question his competence to teach English


[edit on 16-11-2006 by ignorant_ape]

Maybe just maybe they thought N.A.T.O. rolled of the tounge more than N.A.D.O. It is just a guess.