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.

 

It is not the radical jihadists I fear. It is the Radical Right.

page: 8
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely absurd.

How does the "spirit" translate to using force to uproot leaders of other nations in the name of spreading democracy?




posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You just said it was for all people. So if there are people who are being denied those rights, is it not our duty to extend them?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You're being intentionally obtuse.

Just because I believe those rights are universal does not mean I think we can violate the sovereignty of another nation because they do not extend those rights to it's citizens.

Those rights can only be asserted by individuals, not forcibly given.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So everyone in the world has the rights outlined in the COTUS. Granted.

But they are not citizens of this country, nor does everyone in the world believe they have or even should have those rights. They have no legal right to make any claim on this country as foreign nationals. It is for the government of this nation to decide when and to what degree they can assert their claims on this nation.

You can respect that they have freedom of religion without them being given a free pass to the borders of this nation because of it.

In fact, the laws governing asylum provide for religious test. You can claim asylum on strictly religious grounds if you can show that you have come under persecution for your religious beliefs and that is why you are seeking asylum. One would think a Hmong Animist or Christian might be able to make the case or an Ahmadi might also, even under a ban like the one Trump is proposing. If religious persecution is one way to guarantee asylum, then I would consider the converse would also be true: religion would be a reason to keep one out if one's religion or religious beliefs were antithetical to the national good or security of the citizens already in the nation.

Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim no one should want to import someone connected to violent and radical extremist groups like Tashfeen Malik was, and if the only common denominator there was her faith. Then why can we not look there and let that be the bar that keeps her out? Are you going to argue that this country was a better place with her in it?

edit on 16-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Well now if you want to talk about OVERREACH.

Lets begin the lesson.



The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I


National Firearms Act



The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.


Gun Control Act of 1968



The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."


Clinton Assualt weapon Ban



The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act and commonly called the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NICS system was implemented in 1998.


Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act



Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload


Feinsteins Assualt Weapon Ban of 2013

I have had enough of LEFT WING hypocrisy.

Suddenly they draw the line at muslims

What EVER.


I guess the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of these people don't matter.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

Then by what right to do they come here?



No one has a right to come here, but it is against the premise of equal application and the first amendment to stop certain people from coming to the US based on religion.
edit on 16-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: LSU0408




You obviously missed the debate last night.


I missed about half of it because it turned it off after seeing so many people cheer for enforcing the patriot act, killing innocents, and FYI "block the internet in ISIS controlled areas" would be a free ticket to block a wide array of things. Maybe even have to say goodbye ATS.


People boo'd when Trump said that. You didn't pay attention to the debate if you really watched it. He said he'd like to block the internet from ISIS controlled areas outside of the US. How would that deter ATS? Have you ever clicked on a YouTube video and it told you "Sorry, this was produced in an area outside of the US" or something similar to that? Same game plan. When ISIS controlled areas try to tweet or send propaganda or record videos, it can't reach the US, nor can the US civilians see it.

What is the harm in that? Worst case scenario, it doesn't work. Best case scenario, it works and recruiting tools for ISIS are slowed to a crawl.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No it's not. No more than it's discriminatory to not allow people from one country and allow people from another which has happened before.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Country of origin is different than personal faith.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: reldra

Because ISIS and the Taliban and AQ and the ethnic Sunni/Shias all comply right?

Do you know how WW2 ended? Not with a deterrent but with a message that said if you keep this up this will happen again. If we had not bombed Japan we could have lost the conflict in the Pacific and 10's of thousands more soldiers could have been killed.

I am not saying use a nuclear option in the ME either right now either but we are engaging in wartime activity with people who do not comply. Assad gassed his own people which is against the Geneva convention and our SecState just gave him a pass AFTER we drew the line in the sand.

Was killing OBL against the Geneva convention?


I won't lie... I'd nuke the Middle Least... Like an old poster from an old forum I used to post on used to say... Never go to war if you don't intend to win. Cruise over there with a few B-52's, drop a few nuclear bombs, roll out and call it a day. I'm sure it sounds cruel, but the longer we keep away from this action to protect their civilians, the longer we risk ours being killed by those hiding behind our weakness/kindness. They started this, we need to finish it.


(post by LSU0408 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes that was due to the fact that there weren't tougher policies on health workers and travelers until after the Ebola fear-mongering had reached an all time high... New York and New Jersey were the only 2 states who enacted a mandatory quarantine policy for those coming from Ebola effected countries.

My point still stands though, a ban on travel against Muslims is unacceptable much in the same way it was for those traveling from west Africa.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I explained it perfectly fine.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Sure, I just believe you over what I watched myself because on your word I didn't pay attention.


Good luck with the great wall of Trump.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: introvert
So now it's the Illuminati that is coming for our bacon?



Hypocrisy much?


originally posted by: introvert
Can you refute my assertions, or are you just going to go emotional and attack? I mean, that's a nice rant and all, but it didn't actually address any of the points I made. Can you comment on the constitution and it's spirit?


Case in point. You get a thumbs up.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I keep hearing TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. I can see that none of you are wathcing the other GOP candidates nor the debates because almost all of them are calling for the same thing. Trump used emotion and it got a rise out of everyone and then people who are smart took a closer look. The sheep are simply calling him a racist Hitler. Kind of like Hands up Don't shoot. PEople are still saying this garbage and promoting it but it NEVER happened.


LOL FTW OMG
:ch eers:


The "Hands up Don't shoot" was deemed the biggest lie of 2015... Haha. Gotta love it



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ElectricFeel

Targeting civilians and civilian populations is an absolutely brutal and absolutely effective tactic of war. The terrorists know this. Look how much they've been able to make our own lives miserable by doing it: TSA, Patriot Act, NSA, etc.



So the answer is to become terrorists ourselves?

And I don't mean that rhetorically...

There are two fundamental reactions when confronted with these types of immoral and horrific tactics:

(1) Fight fire with fire...aka become the beast you abhor..."“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” ...Nietzsche etc.

This involves Trumps call to arms...Target families, civilians, religions, sacrifice constitutional principles...the only way to destroy a terrorist is to fight on their terms.

vs.

(2) Hold to our principles, the principles that offend terrorists and not be drawn into eroding those principles...Trump might dismiss this as weak political correctness...others would see at as the more dangerous, but more certain path to victory.

Strangely it is not all a left or right argument. Last nights GOP debate made Rand Paul look like an Island of sanity talking about not sacrificing the constitution or principles for terrorists.

Here is the real deal. ISIS has Raqqa as their prophesized ground of making a last stand in the apocalyptic last stand in the West vs. Muslims. They have the entire civilian population as a shield.

Any time Putin or the US wants to end things they can flatten Raqqa with bombs...Women, Children, ISIS et al.

But does that buy us more safety? Or create more terrorists? And do we lose more than bombs? Do we both make ourselves less safe with no moral "high ground" left having met them in the "valley of evil"?

Personally?...I advocate surrounding them, cutting off supplies and moving in on the ground with overwhelming force sparing as many civilians as possible. But that brings us to "boots on the ground" and almost certainly lives lost.

The issue here ...AQ wanted us "out of the Middle East"...ISIS wants "in the Middle east" for the end of days battle.

So leaving them alone is not an option...They will continue to attack Europe and the USA as opportunity affords until everyone is drawn in.
edit on 16-12-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: introvert

I explained it perfectly fine.


No you didn't. You responded with a whiny rant that attacked me personally.

You're a grown man, right? Can't you do better?

Oh, I just read that you would like to nuke the ME. Now I know why you can't properly debate. You're not all there.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




So the answer is to become terrorists ourselves?


Stop the presses.

So now anyone that doesn't agree with open borders is a 'terrorist' ?


(post by Murgatroid removed for political trolling and baiting)

new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join