Article 5

by lastmanstanding 14 Replies latest members politics

  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    The United States of America will once again invoke Article 5. It’s as good as done.

    This time will be different.

    Daniel writes, “no one will help him”. There will be no “coalition of the willing”. Uncle Sam will have to go it alone, and USA will have bit off more then they can chew.

    Nobody will assist the USA.

    When I first posted about this, the world had not yet learned to hate Uncle Sam. But I was waiting for it. And here it is. And the world will not stop hating it.

    The image in Daniel is crushed at its feet. Those feet are already now full of clay, diluted with “the sons of mankind” through unbridled immigration. But the Anglo-American Empire represented by the feet of clay and iron are not going to fade away. No. They are destroyed decisively. It is the rock cut from the mountain that crushes them and finishes the story told by the image.

    From Babylon till the Anglo-American empire. It will finally be done.

  • Balaamsass2
    Balaamsass2

    ??? Are you talking about article 5 regarding the USA....a constitutional Convention...or NATO article 5, An attack on any member is an attack on all?

    As far as "The image" in Daniel, you are aware Watchtower has flip flopped on that to many times to count. I would take that with a large grain of salt.

  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    Balam

    Firstly, I would like to mention that I wrote nothing about “watchtower”…

    You did.

    Secondly, nothing I wrote remotely resembles any “watchtower” teach.

    You brought it up.

    Thirdly, it should be quite obvious to anyone, who is politically aware, that the Article 5 I speak to is NATO.

    Or perhaps you will educate us concerning “constitutional convention” that would be used to create, to quote G Bush.. “a coalition of the willing”…

    I will use Ai to help.

    “The U.S. has invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) only once, in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This triggered the first-ever use of the collective defense clause, stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all”

    You see, back in 2001 Sept. 11 there were some buildings blown up in the heart of NYC. And some planes were flown into some, but not all, prior to them being blown to smitherines. And the USA used the ensuing hysteria to create an environment for war and empire expansion.

    But maybe you know something about “constitutional convention” that you can enlighten us with.

    Balam, I wouldn’t give the hind end of a sick rat for “watchtower” or her teachings, had I one to give.

  • Listener
    Listener

    AI can’t be trusted to give the correct information.

    Hopefully this is more correct. Note - it wasn’t the US that invoked it, it was NAC

    AI

    In NATO's history, Article 5 has been invoked only once, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO's decision-making body, invoked Article 5 in response to the attacks on the United States. The US did not formally request the invocation of Article 5, but indicated it wouldn't object to NATO taking such action.
    Elaboration:
    • Article 5:
      This article of the North Atlantic Treaty establishes the principle of collective defense, meaning an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all.
  • 9/11:
    The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, led to the only invocation of Article 5 in NATO's history.
  • No US Request:
    While the US was the target of the attacks, it did not officially request the invocation of Article 5 from NATO.
  • NATO's Action:
    The North Atlantic Council (NAC) ultimately invoked Article 5, recognizing the attacks as an action covered by the treaty, according to Wikipedia.
  • Listener
    Listener

    There was an error in posting, this is the AI article -

    In NATO's history, Article 5 has been invoked only once, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO's decision-making body, invoked Article 5 in response to the attacks on the United States. The US did not formally request the invocation of Article 5, but indicated it wouldn't object to NATO taking such action.
    Elaboration:
    • Article 5:
      This article of the North Atlantic Treaty establishes the principle of collective defense, meaning an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all.
  • 9/11:
    The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, led to the only invocation of Article 5 in NATO's history.
  • No US Request:
    While the US was the target of the attacks, it did not officially request the invocation of Article 5 from NATO.
  • NATO's Action:
    The North Atlantic Council (NAC) ultimately invoked Article 5, recognizing the attacks as an action covered by the treaty, according to Wikipedia.
  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    Listener, thanks for a nice response.

    Yes, it’s true Ai cannot be trusted. I will not disagree there. Its usage should be general.

    That said, if you believe that the USA is -not- responsible for the invocation of Article 5 then you are fooling yourself. Even what you presented stipulates they did not “formally” request this.

    When does the CIA “formally” request anything?

    The oligarchs who run the US mafia and even now pull Trump’s strings intended the invocation of Article 5 when they began filling Trade Tower 1,2 with thermite.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    The US did not invoke Article 5 and even after its invocation by another group barely any nations responded and most only responded willing to be very briefly in a non-combat role.

    Treaty my behind, NATO demonstrated, like the UN with Korea, Vietnam and the Balkan wars that the treaties are not worth the paper they are written on. If nations can be a leach on their rich neighbors, they will, the only way to project power is to have a strong military presence and use it once in a while.

  • iloowy.goowy
    iloowy.goowy

    Looking to interpret current events in the light of Daniel's prophecies seems to me a repeating mistake made by every generation of reader. The interpretations are born of an individual's thinking that theirs is the time of fulfillment and all other times and interpreters were wrong about their own assumptions concerning the meaning of the visions. Some people just think quite highly of themselves and their role in history. But time will tell. It is just so very annoying to read their hubristic predictions which later end up being nothing burgers. Ballocks is just that, ballocks.

  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    Anony

    Contrast if you will, the invocation of Article 5 on behalf of the 911 events in the USA alongside the clearly terrorist attack on France in 2015 and the calls for the invocation of Article 5 on behalf of France who is also an equal signatory of the NATO charter.

    France was ignored.

    https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/using-article-5-of-the-nato-treaty-to-legalize-the-war-against-isis/

    It’s obvious to many professors I’ve had opportunity to listen to, who study political science, that NATO is a stick in Uncle Sam’s hand. And if the war in Ukraine fails to help one and all understand that point, then I can’t help either.

  • lastmanstanding
    lastmanstanding

    Goowy.

    ” Some people just think quite highly of themselves and their role in history.”

    Ad Hominem.

    • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit