Could one individual be the catylist to WWIII?, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 26-7-2011 @ 07:18 PM by michael1983l

I have been thinking about this since the crazy Norweigen fella masacred all those innocent people. Is it possible for one individual acting on their own, without any help whatsover to cause a global war?

An assasination?

A Bombing?

A killing spree?

The release of a deadly virus into the water supply?

A Dirty bomb?

Is any of this a big enough Catylist to cause WWIII, because IMO all those have the possibility of being carried out solely by one individual.

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:21 PM by SonicInfinity

WWIII will not start until tptb want it to start.

It is as simple as that.

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:24 PM by Skippy1138

reply to post by michael1983l

Some people feel the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the indirect catalyst for World War I- so by that theory the answer to your question (in theory) is "Yes"...........

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:24 PM by Shamatt

Yes. It has happened before. Franz Ferdinand.........

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:26 PM by michael1983l

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
WWIII will not start until tptb want it to start.

It is as simple as that.

OK OK I give in, been holding this question back for ages what the heck does TPTB stand for?

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:27 PM by InvisibleAlbatross

reply to post by michael1983l

The powers that be. A group that is never really defined on ATS

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:29 PM by michael1983l

Thanks, the funny thing is just after I submitted the post I worked it out lol

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:30 PM by reptiliannogmar

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
WWIII will not start until tptb want it to start.

It is as simple as that.

OK OK I give in, been holding this question back for ages what the heck does TPTB stand for?

Watch the t.v.series Angel. or I could just tell you I just now realized it. THE POWERES THAT BE.

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:39 PM by AllUrChips

We have been in ww3 for the last 9 years. A world war is defined by war with more than 3 countries I thought. Huh, ill look into that now

en.wikipedia.org...

yes it says spanning multiple continents which this "war on terror does" and last multiple years. So we should be on the lookout for ww4 imo

edit on 26-7-2011 by AllUrChips because: add link

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:50 PM by Bordon81

These days I doubt the assassination of one person could start a war. Read up on the history of Pearl Harbor and the US entry into the Pacific theater in the key of William Friedman.

I was wondering what would happen if the US defaulted on all their Asian bonds? Maybe the US Navy could channel L Ron Hubbard and turn the public into zombie anti Chinese war mongers? Rent out a big section of the Yellow sea off China and resolve the economic problems there?

That might be why the Obama think tank wants to get the budget and debt ceiling issues hammered out now rather than wait for the military complex to dream up WW3.

edit on 26-7-2011 by Bordon81 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 07:55 PM by InnerPeace2012

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by michael1983l

The powers that be. A group that is never really defined on ATS

Ahhh... finally, THE POWERS THAT BE....Now that's what it means...

Back to OP, so what are you planning???...gotcha yah

I think it's gonna have to take something more dramatic than that to start WW3 imo.

A combination worldly happenings like the riots, weather, economy chaos,
will add up to eventually be the catalyst to WW3.

But I will have to agree the above poster, TPTB can start that anytime of the day.

Just my thoughts.

Peace

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 08:38 PM by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by AllUrChips
We have been in ww3 for the last 9 years.

...i see your point - but - technically its incorrect... gwb's "war on terror" was never officially declared a war - just like vietnam wasnt officially declared a war... its a police action and its termed that way intentionally to screw vets out of "declared war" benefits and leave loopholes open for those who profit from war...

Originally posted by AllUrChips
So we should be on the lookout for ww4

...depends on how far back in history you go, as well as whose history you believe is accurate... like the king ferdinand assassination causing ww1 - thats absolute crap... the orchestration of that war had been in the works for a long time and it wasnt just one man that set it into motion...

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 09:46 PM by princeofpeace

MY definition of a WW would include alliances consisting of many multiples of countries fighting each other. Pretty much like the first 2 WWs. Not really seeing that here.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
We have been in ww3 for the last 9 years. A world war is defined by war with more than 3 countries I thought. Huh, ill look into that now

en.wikipedia.org...

yes it says spanning multiple continents which this "war on terror does" and last multiple years. So we should be on the lookout for ww4 imo
edit on 26-7-2011 by AllUrChips because: add link

reply posted on 26-7-2011 @ 09:48 PM by kro32

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by michael1983l

Some people feel the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the indirect catalyst for World War I- so by that theory the answer to your question (in theory) is "Yes"...........

They were already going to fight anyways they just used that as the jumping off point. Has he not been assassinated there would have been another reason they used.

reply posted on 28-7-2011 @ 10:03 AM by hawkman25

reply to post by AllUrChips

For a war to be a War, doesn't have to be declared?

So, for all of these conflics, peace keeping missions, humanitarian aid, interventions, so on and so on, no one is really at war here. Technically speaking.
Why has it gone by undeclared.

edit on 07/28/2011 by hawkman25 because: (no reason given)

Pages: ^^TOP^^