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.

 

You want a 'dealing with terrorists' conspiracy - try this on for size

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and under the law we are at war with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all their associated forces. It is Taliban who happen to be the detainees we are speaking of - and they were in very high leadership roles. Under US law we are at war with those personages.

Therefore under law they are POW's, although I suppose even that word is subject to the PC police who determines them to be detainee's because it sounds nicer I'm sure.
edit on 8-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
If you are mad at a dead presidents actions, you should be madder when a live president does the same thing. A live president who could be punished for the acts you think are wrong. Hopefully stop future presidents from taking the same action.

For some reason, people would rather complain about past actions they don't like instead of worrying about the same actions now. Those people remind me of the guest on the trashy talk shows. I went from High School Geek, to amazingly sheik. They want to show off to the person in High school that didn't like them, kind of like this post.

I will end with, "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry'



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: FyreByrd

Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and under the law we are at war with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all their associated forces. It is Taliban who happen to be the detainees we are speaking of - and they were in very high leadership roles. Under US law we are at war with those personages.


At war with some 'people'. Sounds a lot like the 1940' in Europe.

We do just enough to keep the profits flowing into the MIC and hawks appeased. Congress didn't actually declare war, just told the military to go kill people.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Apparently you are not realizing just how dangerous these extremists are... to all of us. Lest we find an extremist caliphate in the middle of the world that we are having to deal with... because that is what they want. They want to rule with an iron fist.

Just look at Afghanistan to see what that will be like. Women denied education. Men killed because their beard isn't long enough. People killed for listening to music. Historical sites utterly destroyed. People killed in the hundreds of thousands for following the "wrong" religion.

And no, that isn't just propaganda.

Now picture that across many many countries, rather than just one. And yes, that is a danger to us all... not just the other guy.
edit on 8-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Do we go and force a style of living on people without them wanting it?

Do we just decide those people are evil. If so, why haven't we done more to eliminate them? They can see us in the sane light we see them.

If the mid east doesn't ask the west to make a change, why are we forcing it? And don't even say the US had nothing to do with why these people attacked (it they did) on 9-11. Our meddling isn't always welcome around the world.

Bottom line:

Leave the rest of the world to itself or use all out force to conquer it.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   


Historical sites utterly destroyed.


US cities destroy old, historical buildings all the time. Some people even object. Should other countries come kill the town mayor because he and the council say to demolish a building?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Here is where I agree with you. As everyone knows, I am also Muslim... but of the moderate kind. Now, that said there is only one way to fight extremism... only 1. We have tried arguing using polemics etc and that doesn't work against the brainwashed and ignorant.

In most cases, you have to be harsh. In Syria, being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood put you under sentence of death. That is why so many Syrians went to the UK, they could be extremists there and have there extremist ideals and not face a death penalty for it.

But that IS the only way to truly stamp it out. Make it punishable by death to have extremist ideals and belong to extremist organisations. People can either allow Muslims to handle that and stay the hell out of our business, or they can help. Either way, there is only one way to deal with it in the end.

When you decide you have an opinion about how the evil moderates handle extremism, is where we run into problems.
edit on 8-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
People still believe in "terrorists"??? Sad!



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

Although I think Reagan was the best president we ever had, I think a lot of people need to open their eyes and see what you said is true. They are all the same. Republican, democrat, right, left-- They are all puppets controlled by money/Israeli lobbyists(my opinion). They don't care about the people and see politics as a game/winning/losing. It supposed to be about what is best for the American people.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
People forget that the taliban were the official governing body of Afghanistan. they aren't the same as Al Qaeda. it would be like exchanging P.O.W.s with Nazi Germany for prisoners captured on France.

Course, [snipped] won't give a damn about history, they are too busy rewriting it to say that Paul Revere warned the British, and that Jesus wrote the US constitution. Facts aren't a conservatives friend.
edit on Sun Jun 8 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

oh goodness I saw that! And saw it again on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The perfect person to talk about negotiating with terrorists, mistah North



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I have always found it slightly humorous that the hostage takers almost seemed eager to get rid of the hostages, as they did it right after the new president was sworn in. They wanted their goodies badly. I think Obama has taken a lot of crap considering virtually anything he does is met with disdain, no matter that the other party has had leaders do these same things in the past. They act like Obama is the absolute worst and the first person to do everything. He is no worse than many other presidents, of either party.


That was spun as Reagan being tough and scaring the Iranians into immediate compliance where as they felt Carter was too soft to do anything.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImDaMan
People still believe in "terrorists"??? Sad!


And just what would you call someone who puts on a bomb vest, walks into a train station and blows himself and 40 people to smithereens? A virgin seeking tea drinker?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I still don't see the difference. Reagan had Iran-Contra. Plausible Deniability was the buzzword then. He came out of it unscathed because it was never really linked to him personally, but we all know it was. Now you got Obama and Hillary doing the same f***ing thing in Syria and nobody seems the worse for wear. How can anybody with any sense of humanity justify the CIA sponsored overthrow of organized government in Libya so they can steal their weapons and feed them to the Syrians to do the same f***ing thing again?



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

It depends on the reason. Terrorism isn't about the action, it's about using violent methods to force political change. If someone goes and shoots up a WalMart because they hate the company it's not terrorism, it's just a criminal action. If you shoot up a WalMart because you're protesting abortion it's terrorism.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Laws were broke but I think there's no convincing you on that.

This whole thread made me laugh.

I'll sum it up:

"My president is perfect. One you elected did the same. So that makes it ok"

Gross



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MarlinGrace

It depends on the reason. Terrorism isn't about the action, it's about using violent methods to force political change. If someone goes and shoots up a WalMart because they hate the company it's not terrorism, it's just a criminal action. If you shoot up a WalMart because you're protesting abortion it's terrorism.


I haven't seen this yet, but what I have seen is an attempt to change the definition of terrorist. One of the channels on cox ran a show for several days calling Frank and Jesse James terrorist in the title. It seems that when there is no movement on a phrase or idea, we keep renaming it until something or someone gets some action. Then the government and the press run full tilt as if it is something new. It's almost as if we are looking for that "coin the phrase" thing then it takes off.

Terrorism is about action without action it would just be pissed off people in a rant. Real terrorism is a weapon used to influence public opinion in one direction or another. Shooting up walmart over abortion isn't swaying public opinion. Flying a plane into the world trade center influenced public opinion enough to stop flying and almost bankrupt the airline industries. Cutting the head off of Daniel Pearl and posting the video on the internet is terror. Doing the same and it never makes the press is murder. Without changing public opinion you will never get government to change. If gun control isn't an example of this nothing is.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Thirty years ago, or thirty days ago...hmmm. Which one shall we discuss? Wrong is wrong but topical and actionable is today.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MarlinGrace

It depends on the reason. Terrorism isn't about the action, it's about using violent methods to force political change. If someone goes and shoots up a WalMart because they hate the company it's not terrorism, it's just a criminal action. If you shoot up a WalMart because you're protesting abortion it's terrorism.


I've stayed out of this - twice tried to reply to an earlier post and lost my work so gave up.

The couple in Nevada were politically motivated - dumb as f*** but politically motivated. If that is the sole designation of terrorism - violent methods to force political change - then the USA and many other nations are Terrorist States.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

And the "terrorist assests" that Obama "gave" away. Assest are things of use, currently or in the future. They are liabilities (very real DOLLARS to keep them "detained") The assests were used and are now someone elses problem.

True - after the way they have been treated they will go back to their "work" - but the US armed them and trained them in the first place (as the muhadajeen fighting the Soviets) so they are quite a asset. Ain't it great, ruling the world.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join