Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could one individual be the catylist to WWIII?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
WWIII will not start until tptb want it to start.

It is as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
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"...........



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Yes. It has happened before. Franz Ferdinand.........



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


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



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Thanks, the funny thing is just after I submitted the post I worked it out lol



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
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



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
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)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

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...



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
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



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
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)





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join