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.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid
Option A:
Ban the entire middle east's oil like the world did with African blood diamonds.
Add practically every middle eastern country to the state sponsors of terrorism.
The west stop arming 'moderates'
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: thesaneone
How's that working out for you?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: thesaneone
It IS an ugly world.
But we don't have to strut up and down the street posturing like we have little man syndrome, either.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: thesaneone
It IS an ugly world.
But we don't have to strut up and down the street posturing like we have little man syndrome, either.
No we don't, "nothing personal just business", as the saying goes.
I say we take their caliphate away, first. Take back the ground.
That is the incentive they are counting on for recruits and drives the ideology.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid
Option A:
Ban the entire middle east's oil like the world did with African blood diamonds.
Add practically every middle eastern country to the state sponsors of terrorism.
This includes both Saudi Arabia,Iran,Kuwait,Turkey,UAE,Yemen,Syria,Oman etc.
Kick China and Russia off the Un 'security' council since they are arming them.
The west stop arming 'moderates'
That's a beginning.
When that fails.
Boots on the ground, and kill them until they are gone. No half asses measures.
No winning hearts and minds.
No 'nation building'.
Kill them, and break their will to fight.
That means bringing the entire resources of this country to bear. Like we did in world war 2.
A combined effort from everyone.
And lastly keep the effing politics out of it.
Get it done.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Rosinitiate
Hey brother it's a simple question and everyone can answer this the way they choose but I know my answer.
If somebody you loved were captive and in imminent danger, and you had the person/source in custody would you act in a way that is beneficial towards your loved one (including torture) to get the information on their wear abouts and the guarantee of their safe return. Or would you act ideally and allow that loved one to suffer whatever fate may come. I know my answer what is yours?
originally posted by: Azureblue
How more times do people have to learn that a law the gets up because its sold to the public as "this law will only ever be applied to some one else not you' will be applied to them in time.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Rosinitiate
Hey brother it's a simple question and everyone can answer this the way they choose but I know my answer.
If somebody you loved were captive and in imminent danger, and you had the person/source in custody would you act in a way that is beneficial towards your loved one (including torture) to get the information on their wear abouts and the guarantee of their safe return. Or would you act ideally and allow that loved one to suffer whatever fate may come. I know my answer what is yours?
originally posted by: schuyler
Waterboarding and the stuff America has done in an attempt to get people to talk is not "torture" in any conventional sense of the term.
Should those rights extend to those that has actively, and openly declared war on the state, and war on the people?
Cult members don't get DUE PROCESS once identified ...not to mention NON CITIZENS.
This is just how the Constitution works. The Fifth Amendment says (among other things) that “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This is followed up in the Fourteenth Amendment with “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Nowhere is the word “person” qualified with any citizenship requirements, and this is significant, for it means — and has always meant — that the requirement to provide due process of law is a requirement that attaches to the state, not a right that applies to citizenship.