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.

 

Does anyone else believe WW3 started on 9/11 disguised as the "War on Terror"?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
IMHO I believe WW3 un-officially began after the 9/11 attacks, cleverly disguised as the "War on Terror". Because if you look at the facts, most countries have been at perpetual war in the Middle East to help America "catch" the terrorists. The major theme behind this world war has already been about "eradicating terrorism". Similar with all the drivel around Iran, that we should "stop" their non-existing "nuclear terrorism" as soon as possible.

This would imply that WW3 has already been the longest war since the last two world wars (about 10 years), but we just haven't reached the nuclear stage yet...
edit on 23-11-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I don't disbelieve your thoughts. It did not happened like that for WWII or WWI, but sometimes I think people go back like when history books are made or when official records are kept and remove or change some info. For instance, they may omit a lot in recent history because our grandchildren's grandchildren will look back and say their ancestors were morons. But! that is besides the point, being that many nations have assisted against Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually infecting Pakistan...and ultimately might be carried into Iran or Syria. You might be right...for all I know.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Desert Storm Bush snr thats where i belive it started, the 1st phase anyway,phase 2 911 Bush n Cheeneys 911, evil fux.We know bush snr is all for the nwo infact i think he has a great deal to do with 911 as well, i recall him saying'when we are succesful & we will be" he wasnt kidding, the snow ball been rolling for yrs its just to big know to say its not happening, ww3 that is



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
No. I think the term "world war" is misused.

The War on Terror is not a world war. Far from it.

Regards



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
We'll never know since the naming stuff is usually (but not always) done in hindsight.

Look at what we call the Napoleonic wars as an example..They where a series of different coalition wars that now sit under one banner. Britain and France where probably the only 2 belligerent nations (I could be wrong and am going from memory) that saw the war through from start to finish with lots of other nations joining/leaving/staying in/opting out/joining one side and then the other all in all not to dissimilar to the past decade.

Who knows what it will be called in the history books I just hope the whole thing ends soon



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
No. I think the term "world war" is misused.

The War on Terror is not a world war. Far from it.

Regards


"World War" means the whole world is sucked into it. It doesn't mean that there's a massive war all over the world.

In WWII, major conflicts were confined to Europe, Eurasia, Asia, North Africa, and the Atlantic. The Americas, the entire western hemisphere, did not experience such major hostilities. That is not to say that there wasn't other things going on though.

The Cold War was technically WWIII. Proxy conflicts happened all over the world, easily disguised in various forms but it was all about left vs right ideology. WWIII ended with the end of the major leftist power, the USSR, who was backing most leftists abroad.

Then we entered the modern era, which is essentially one of accumulation. Major powers (and subfactions like corporations) are trying to acquire and control as many resource assets as possible. The endgame for our modern scenerio is when the resources become scarce and who will have the largest stockpiles. The masses will obviously run over to the side with the most resources, especially since many of us are accustomed to the conveniency of life as it is now and probably couldn't handle a life of self-reliance.

Think about it. Afghanistan has minerals, Iraq has oil, Libya has oil and water. If NATO was really out just to acquire land, then we would have steamrolled right through Africa by now, but Africa has nothing left for us to gain from (aside from their cheap exports that we keep cheap through already established means). Syria and Iran are next on the list because they are, for the most part, isolated and autonomous. They are not Russia's, China's, the EU's, or America's bitch... at least, not yet.

And if you look at it even further, you'll realize that Iraq was trying to rally the middle east together to form an independent economic union, as was Lybia for Africa. Then they got invaded and ransacked. This is no coincidence.
edit on 23-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


In my view, Bush jr's "you are either with us or against us" address the nation speech and declaration of 'war on terrorism' on 20 September 2001, was the 'official' WW3 call to arms.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 



Well, TPTB did say, "Global War on Terror." We have troops in 130 or so countries now, and are fighting 4 or 5 shooting wars. Yes, I agree strongly that we are in the middle of WW3. How will it end? not well, I think.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Like others have said, the term "world war" involves countries all over the world, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been between them, the US and the UK. NATO involved themselves in Libya to gain a hold of their resources, we wouldn't have helped them otherwise. No country invades or intervenes unless there is something to gain from aiding another country that is my opinion.
edit on 23/11/11 by JoshuaUK92 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BULLETINYOURHEAD
 


Interesting view. That means by 2012, WW3 has been running for 21 years!



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
i think they inadvertently started ww3 without realizing it. in fact i'd think that most of the steps towards the war itself, was designed to draw in russia and china to attempt to attack the US down the road.

i think they started the war on the american people with 9/11 but took it further when they realized they could.

the war on terror imo was designed to draw americas forces into the region to alleviate a lot of the opposition and resistance down the road when the major war begins in the homeland (which i think is the intention)

once they win the war on the homeland, they will be the undeniable breadwinners for centuries to come.

the war is on two enemies, foreign and domestic. part of me believes the people running the show aren't faithful to their respected countries but rather are setting the nations against each other to swoop in later on when its all said and done.

its progressively heading to an inevitable conflict between NATO-Israel and SCO, the two major opposing military alliances and their proxies.




edit on 23-11-2011 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 
the last war will last 20 and 7 years... will be like no other... no big war drive, no songs nor war bonds to by... if your not in "armed forces", your the enemy... Big brother will come to full light TSA DHS HOME LAND, the rebirth of the SS... no battle lines or troop maps, no flags nor uniforms to define friend from foe...will be fought on the streets and back yards... There is no safe place, it will be a war of beliefs, teachings of old... Us and them will be the line in the sand... no one nation will be the starting point, nor will it the ending...it will spread around the globe, becoming a global war, it will have its own banners and medals as seen here www.gruntsmilitary.com... why oh why all this? Sounds better than saying WW3 does it not?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 
6 years at the most, till the big fall, not just of one nation but of all, not just by one deed, but of many form with in as well as from out, will it be by the bomb or of IMF? will it be of the OWS? oh yes the movement is strong , getting stronger , fro it did start in the sand, remember Arab Spring.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
yes,

it was a war for the hearts and minds of americans,
who then gave their hearts and minds to the war mongers
this created the perpetual unwinnable war on a meme

the real war is for your mind ww3

xploder



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
"World War" means the whole world is sucked into it. It doesn't mean that there's a massive war all over the world.


Is the whole world sucked into the War on Terror? No.

The War on Terror is not a world war. The War on Terror is a confrontion between the US, UK and other Western nations against al-Qaeda et al.

It's a phrase.

Regards



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
"World War" means the whole world is sucked into it. It doesn't mean that there's a massive war all over the world.


Is the whole world sucked into the War on Terror? No.

The War on Terror is not a world war. The War on Terror is a confrontion between the US, UK and other Western nations against al-Qaeda et al.

It's a phrase.

Regards


It is far from that simple. It has little to even do with terrorists. The "terrorists" that Western countries have been fighting are ragtag rebels fighting against neoliberal imperialism. The objective is to accumulate as many resources as possible, and the "terrorists" are those not strong enough to fight invading forces acquiring said resources.
edit on 23-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
No. I think the term "world war" is misused.

The War on Terror is not a world war. Far from it.

Regards


Yes. Its actually called a genocide.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Do you recall how many thought that crossing from 1999 to 2000 was going to be the arrival of Armegeddon....Some even bought stacks of food etc. and ran off to seek protection high in the hills.

Others saw it all as a joke and on December 31st 1999 - close to midnight - a group of BBC.CO.UK spokemen * women, discussed the oncoming future with a whole host of people.

HERE'S THE BIT THAT SAY'S 'HOW RIGHT YOU ARE'.........

One Middle east spokesman sat near a wall in the BBC studio, had a large Map of the Middle East pinned to the wall behind him. He - when asked - pointed toward the Map, circled his finger round such and said, " A WAR WILL START SOMEWHERE IN THE REGION. IT WILL LAST FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS AND WILL END SHOWING THIS WORLD THE WORST WAR IT HAS EVER EXPERIENCED".

After hearing him say that I found myself watching News Broadcast's closer...... And now considering the time that has passed since 9/11. I agree with what you say 100%.

If a journalist happens to read this, then he or she will have the knowleged plus ability to search through the BBC Archives and see how what I am saying did really happen. I did email the BBC several times, but no reply.

To close, the best I can wish for is that someone Can Prove Me / Us to be wrong. Yet so does Santa
edit on 23-11-2011 by steaming because: to correct spelling



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Yes your right but who arms trains and bank rolls al cia duh its all a show to steal your mind



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
there are many sides to this like the facets of a very large jewel it all depends on the perspective we take what facet we look at, how we interpret this. one may consider word war three to be nothing but a c continuation of the eternal war between dark and light, the interplay of positive and negative energies resulting eventually in a new synthesis. but one may well consider world war three to have stated within war on terror maybe we should simply say, this was the beginning of the phase where world war three would begin, a laying out of the board game maybe.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join