World War III began in May 2006: Building the New Map of the Middle East in Real Time

via chycho
new middle east

 

I. Beginnings of Conflicts

Usually there are disagreements as to the exact dates of beginnings of conflicts, especially when those conflicts are global.

The beginnings of wars are often hard to identify. Which act lit the spark on the tinderbox? Which straw was the final one? Like peak oil itself, the beginnings of war are often visible only in retrospect.”

For example, some would argue that World War II began in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. Others would pick the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria, or maybe even the 1933 Reichstag Fire. The only consensus regarding World War II is that it was devastating.

As for World War III, some believe that it was the Cold War and that we are in the beginning stages of World War IV. They believe that it started with the invasion of Iraq, and will be completely realized when the United States and Israel begin their attack on Iran and Syria (1, 2).

Some reference the confrontation between Israel and Palestine at the turn of the century as the start. Others state that the First Gulf War was the “opening guns of World War III”, while some declare that “the most significant feature of this New World Order/World War III is that the target of war is no longer so much a state institution as it is the citizenry of states. Since this majority is working class, World War III is really a war upon the working class, designed to increase the rate of its economic exploitation.”

There is even a belief that the root cause is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which is “creating worldwide tensions similar to the standoff before the Second World War.”

Others, specifically, Miles Copeland, Jr. who was one of the founding members of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), predicted in 1989 that World War III would begin when the United States and Israel get duped by Russia into starting a self-destructive war – referred to as a crusade by some – with the Muslim world:

But even with the help of the Israelisespecially with the help of the Israelis! – we couldn’t defeat the Iranians, the ‘Arabs’, the world of Islam or the whole Third World if it should turn against us. We [the CIA] have reason to believe that Soviet strategists well understand this, and that the Third World War that they envision will be one of ourselves against shapeless forces of the Third World, with Soviet Russia ostensibly aloof from it…The U.S Government was sinking into exactly the dilemma that best suited the purposes of Moscow’s Leninists as they’ve begun to blossom under Gorbachev. In materials easily available to the U.S government without recourse to espionage, they had made it clear enough that in their version of the Third World War the United States would be forced into a variety of situations in which it would feel compelled to play the role of a powerful nation but, for all the world to see on it television sets, it would in fact, be powerless.” The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA’s Original Political Operative, London: Aurum Press, 1989


click to enlarge – source

II. Start of World War III

Whichever truth you choose to believe, since they are all relevant and valid in their own right, the fact is that according to the mainstream media, World War III (or IV) has already begun.

Considering that the players involved in starting this war are so conveniently, on our behalf, declaring that World War III (or IV) has already started, I thought it would be a good idea to narrow the timeline and pick a date which will be marked as the commencement of the demise of our civilization.

So when exactly did World War III start?

In early May of 2006, the president of the United States, George W Bush, the commander in chief of the United States Military, stated that 2001 was the beginning of World War III. His remarks were confirmed by Dan Gillerman, at the time Israel’s UN Ambassador, when he also acknowledged during a routine UN Security Council meeting on 30 May 2006 that World War III had already begun. Many consider these two statements from two of the main nuclear powers in the world to be the declaration of War, indicating that World War III has already started.

So even though 11 September 2001 is the key to understanding why this conflict has begun, and considered by the United States to be the event that triggered World War III, I believe that May 2006 is really the beginning of this global conflict. This is when the two major parties, who each individually is capable of starting World War III, declared war.

III. Map of the New Middle East

As to what the objective of this war is for some of its conspirators? The most likely purpose is twofold: to create the New Map of the Middle East, and to maintain the status quo of Western economic dominance over global financial markets. A lot more on the economics of war later, for now, let’s focus on the new map of the Middle East.

The boundaries of countries were redrawn after World War I and World War II (1, 2), and that is exactly what the end resulted will be once the dust settles after this world war.

What is happening right now is very likely related to US plans to create a New Middle East, the plans for which were revealed in 2006 by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. The map, presented below, with the redrawn borders of the Middle East, indicates that Turkey would lose a large portion of its territory while Iraq would be split into three autonomous regions. This map also shows plans to partition Pakistan and reduce Iran’s territory, along with numerous other imperial agendas.

Present Middle East


click map to enlarge

New Middle East


click map to enlarge – source

IV. The Human Toll

As to the human toll of this global war, a conservative estimate of how many people would die can be obtained by assuming that the same percentage of people that died in World War II would also die in World War III.

In the 1940’s the world population was approximately 2.3 billion. World War II resulted in 60 to 80 million deaths (38 to 55 million of which were civilian casualties). This means that approximately 4% of the world’s population was killed.

At present, the world population is approximately 7 billion. If we assume that the same percentage of people will die during this world war than the last, it would mean that over 280 million people will be dead in the next few years. This is a conservative estimate since nuclear weapons were introduced at the end of World War II, while they are being proposed at the beginning of World War III. The number of wounded will be approximately 1.5 billion if we assume a kill to wounded ratio of 1 to 5.

, , , , , ,

  • $34266836

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I’ve had some thoughts along these lines recently, also. But my take is a bit different.

    My impression is that there are no state actors with enough credibility in the area to maintain any type of nationalist or block focus such as would have been comprehensible to our ancestors. Rather, I wonder if this could represent some type of evolutionary recognition of the death of state power, and sectarianism in general.

    You could make the argument that WWI represented the death of monarchy, and WWII represented the death of nationalism–at least in the west. The Cold War might have represented the emergence of multinational capitalism as the predominant mode of empire.

    The peoples of the Middle East haven’t, with the possible exception of the Turks, ever experienced the type of quasi-racialist nationalist identity that we have in the west. British and American interventions precluded the development of these ideas through the present date.

    The closest parallel in their political vocabulary, I believe, would be sectarian enthusiam within the various flavours of Islam.

    Currently those various Islamic sects see each other as greater threats than they do Israel or the United States or Russia. Lebanese members of Hezbollah are currently in Syria murdering all opponents–secular and religious alike–of the Assad regime.

    This is particularly bad news because there doesn’t seem to be any remotely likely scenario which will allow a settled balance of power such as existed previously.

    All religons have a perverting tendency to serve as means of social control, but Islam is a particularly pernicious example as its core doctrines are antithetical to the type of tolerance that democracies and stable intercommunal relationships require. It’s very name means “Submission”–to the will of an arbitrary authority claiming exclusive divine revelation.

    At least in the various forms of popular Christianity there is the core notion of peaceful dissent against state authority, even if that core notion is most usually ignored. Islam was specifically founded as a political religion that will be rendered incoherent unless it commands complete authority. There is no possibility of “agreement to disagree”, merely a temporary suspension of hosilities pending the final liquidation of their rivals.

    So now the evolutionary task of the peoples of this region is somehow to leapfrog past the antiquated notions of both nationalism and sectarianism at once to find some reasonable accomodation. Even though they themselves are inhabiting a 13th century mindscape.

    Good f*cking luck.

    • Adam’s Shadow

      Spot on, sir, spot on.

    • Tchoutoye

      “You could make the argument that WWI represented the death of
      monarchy, and WWII represented the death of nationalism–at least in the
      west”

      If only that were true. I live in a western monarchy in which nationalism has only grown in the last two decades.

      “The peoples of the Middle East haven’t, with the possible exception of
      the Turks, ever experienced the type of quasi-racialist nationalist
      identity that we have in the west.”

      Israel is a Middle Eastern country in which quasi-racialist nationalist
      identity (in the form of Zionism) is stronger than most other countries in the world. As for the arabs, pan-arabism has ultimately failed as a project but the identity-fuelled sentiments behind it were definitely there.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        There’s definitely a sense in which what you say is unquestionably true. But I think that it portrays a rather unbalanced portrait of actual relationships.

        British, Spanish, Dutch and Scandinavian constitutional monarchies are, no offense, a bit of a joke. Certainly in comparison to the type of autocratic sway they held before WWI.

        Yes, there are certain aspects of monarchy that are still salient beyond the merely ceremonial. But the actual agenda of multinational corporate oligarchs is so insistent that when you really look at it, monarchy functions as little more than a coerced rubber stamp.

        Many people would seriously question whether Israel is truly a Middle Eastern country, having been imported wholesale from Europe after the end of WWII. Before that date, the population of Palestinian Jews was neglible at best.

        I have some thoughts about Zionism that run along the lines you present, but I think it is more than a little inaccurate to call Israel Middle Eastern. They are entirely dependent on the US and western Europe for their survival. Israelis waste no opportunity to impress upon us westerners just how western they are.

        I don’t see how Pan-Arabism could ever have expected any more success than Plan-Slavicism enjoyed. Muslims, and Arabs in particular, are human beings with long and sophisticated intellectual traditions and well defined regional interests that render a brutal, one-size-fits-all political concept untenable. Although such a philosophy’s attractions are obvious from the autocrat’s point of view, it is an inherently unviable proposition in the context of such a diverse constituency.

  • Deteis

    Holy shit I fought in WW3! Take that Grandpa!

  • Tchoutoye

    World War III would begin when the United States and Israel get duped by Russia into starting a self-destructive war – referred to a crusade by some– with the Muslim world

    This sounds like the rapist’s defence: “It was her sex appeal that duped me!“.
    Just replace sex appeal with the appeal of oil and minerals.

    • David Duke-Astin

      oil is valuable, but the real prize is war itself. war is money. every state spends money on war.

  • Tchoutoye

    If we assume that the same percentage of people will die during this world war than the last, it would mean that over 280 million people will be dead in the next few years.

    The nature of war has radically changed from the world wars of the 20th century. First of all, war has become asymmetric, fought by proxy and lacking clear objectives, decisive battles and exit strategies. Asymmetric proxy wars tend to simmer rather than rage: a drone strike here, a false flag terrorist attack there. Relatively low casualties each time, but frequent enough for us to no longer pay attention if they happen on far away front lines.

    Secondly, the proportion of physical combat has declined in favour of more stealth types of war, such as information war (a.k.a. propaganda), cyberwarfare and, most importantly, economic/financial warfare. Two examples of the latter would be the economic blockade of Saddam’s Iraq, and more recently Goldman Sachs vs. Greece. The resulting poverty from economic warfare may cause millions of deaths, but it is unlikely that they will be counted as war dead.

  • BuzzCoastin

    > over 280 million people will be dead in the next few years
    > on average World War II resulted in 60 to 80 million deaths
    (38 to 55 million of which were civilian casualties).
    This means that approximately 4% of the world’s population was killed.

    today
    56.0 million Earthlings die every year, most from natural causes

  • BuzzCoastin

    what’s the net net on this
    be afraid

    what if they gave a WW3 and no one came?

  • リカルド 忍者の心

    WW3 will be a generalized global civil war: in the “first world” countries, ordinary people will fight the governments and the conspiratorial elites for their freedom; meanwhile, in the “third world” countries, ordinary people will fight for the food and money that will be lacking because of the conflicts in “first world”.

  • commandergreen

    This is the most retarded thing I ever heard of. WW3 has begun because you said it has, there is going to be a proportional number of dead as ww2 because this is WW3, if it wasnt “WW3″ then you dont know how many people would die. If they launched all there nukes everyone except those in the bunkers are dead. WW1 had 37 million dead, ww2 60 to 90, ww3 is going to have what 120 million dead. See how retarded it is.

  • DeepCough

    So will a nuclear bomb be the big finale? Or do we have to wait for part IV?

  • ishmael2009

    Interesting article, but can we please drop the “peak oil” meme? It’s tired, in fact it’s exhausted. There is no shortage of oil, in fact the earth is riddled with the stuff. All that the “peak oil” meme does is encourage the fantasy that if we just wait a bit longer oil will run out and we will be forced to enter some renewable fairytale. It won’t, and meanwhile warmongers can press their claim that control of a rapidly diminishing resource is worth fighting and dying for

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/18/energy-price-volatility-policy-fossil-fuels?commentpage=last#end-of-comments