9/11/2001: The Start of World War III?

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by georgephillip, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,428
    Thanks Received:
    1,265
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,039
    Prominent US conservatives and political insiders Robert Kagan and William Kristol apparently thought so in October 2001 when they authored an editorial in the Weekly Standard titled "The Gathering Storm".

    "'When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory.

    "'But to what looms over the horizon — a wide-range war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle...'

    Almost like the script of a new ad campaign, the Weekly Standard editorial has accurately predicted elements of global cause and effect over the past decade.

    "'[T]his war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity.

    "'It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously.

    "'It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid.

    "'And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.'

    "In 2001, both Robert Kagan and William Kristol were well aware of the conflagration of war in Eurasia.

    "Both men are U.S. political insiders that were aware of what direction U.S. foreign policy would take the U.S. military.

    "After all Kagan and Kristol were associates with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz through the political think-tank the Project for a News American Century (PNAC) that outlined a global military roadmap for a 'new American century.'”

    Starting dates for wars are often ethnocentric. In Western Europe and North America WWII's starting date is September 1, 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.

    The Czechs believe March 16, 1939 when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia started the Second World War.

    In Asia it's widely believe WWII began much earlier.

    "Many consider the start of the Second World War to have been when Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, two years before 1939.

    "Even before 1937, since 1931 the Chinese and Japanese were in conflict and 1931 too can be seen as the start of World War II."

    A half-century from today will historians look back at 911 and see a seamless transition into World War III?

    The March to War
     
  2. Patriot911
    Offline

    Patriot911 BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,184
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Ratings:
    +91
    I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West. His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.

    It didn't happen.

    I don't think it is going to happen.

    Why? Because we're already out of Iraq. Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.

    It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.

    And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.

    It's been almost ten years since 9/11. There may still be a world war, but I would look to North Korea as a much more likely instigator than a "clash of civilizations" fueling the flames of WWIII.
     
  3. AVG-JOE
    Offline

    AVG-JOE American Mutt Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    22,887
    Thanks Received:
    4,879
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Your Imagination
    Ratings:
    +7,014
  4. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Funny joke!! :lol:
     
  5. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,428
    Thanks Received:
    1,265
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,039
    Would you agree with this paragraph from The March to War...?

    "The NATO and Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly tied to September 11, 2001.

    "These events are also related to the military threats directed against Iran and Syria, the tensions in Lebanon and East Africa, as well as U.S. and NATO threats directed against China and Russia.

    "In this regard, the historians of the future may say that World War III could have started on September 11, 2001 or that the tragic events on September 11, 2001 were a prelude to World War III."

    Which do you think most likely?

    WWIII started on 9/11/2001 or that 9/11 was a prelude to WWIII?
     
  6. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,428
    Thanks Received:
    1,265
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,039
    Have you seen any credible estimates of the amount of corporate profit being realized from the War on Terror?

    I'm not sure whether this represents a credible source, or not:

    "What's wrong with this picture?
    The world's lone superpower, fearful of being attacked by one of many real or perceived enemies, sets out to solve the problem by increasing weapon sales and military aid to the world.

    "But the sales and aid aren't just made available to existing allies; indeed in the wake of Sept. 11th, the race is on to arm governments formerly considered unstable or otherwise 'off-limits' due to gross human rights violations, on grounds that these nations are assisting in the sweeping 'war against terrorism.'"

    55 years ago, Einstein and Russell pointed out a choice that is still "stark and dreadful and inescapable:shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war."

    WWIII might be strike three for our children and us.
     
  7. Patriot911
    Offline

    Patriot911 BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,184
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Ratings:
    +91
    No, I do not. I agree Afghanistan is tied to 9/11. Saddam's ass kicking was of his own design.

    We've been "at odds" with Iran and Syria long before 9/11, so how can you suddenly blame 9/11 for the tensions?

    If there is tension in Lebanon and East Africa, that is news to me.

    As for Russia and China, :lol: What threats are we directing at them?

    Neither. I believe the article posted is nothing but fearmongering and pretty piss poor fearmongering at that.
     
  8. georgephillip
    Offline

    georgephillip Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    26,428
    Thanks Received:
    1,265
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Ratings:
    +2,039
    Do you think anyone at the Wall Street Journal is laughing?

    How about Nouri al-Maliki ruling out "...the continuation of the US occupation of Iraq past 2011, saying every last US troops would have to leave exactly as mandated in the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

    "The comments came as a number of US officials have been privately conceding that no one in the US government is operating under the assumption that the SOFA will be abided by, and everyone assumes that the US military will continue operations in Iraq for years to come."

    We should all keep in mind every Iraqi politician currently holding office is there because he/she collaborated with the US occupation.

    That includes the current prime minister who also announced today (12/27/10) the Mahdi Army will now be considered part of Iraq's government.

    So far, Muqdata al-Sadr hasn't been confused with a collaborator.

    Maliki: US Must Leave
     
  9. Patriot911
    Offline

    Patriot911 BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,184
    Thanks Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Ratings:
    +91
    Iraq is a sovreign country. We are there at their insistance. If / when they want us to leave, we have no other choice but to leave.
     
  10. R.C. Christian
    Offline

    R.C. Christian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,955
    Thanks Received:
    1,074
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Ghetto
    Ratings:
    +1,195
    Kristol, Kagan and all foreign policy experts knew that control of central asia was/is the most important foreign policy goal of the 21st century. They knew that the survival of the U.S. as it currently exists is dependent upon our ability to control that area. That's why we're there and for no other reason.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page