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.

 

Commissioner Suggests U.N. Send Troops To Fight ‘Quiet Genocide’ Of Gun Violence In Chicago

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Here is a poem that I wrote,on this date,back in 2009.It fits in with this thread topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Trump is pushing for America first. So that we retain what traditions are still salvageable. So anyone pushing something different appears to be anti-American and against traditions we keep.
Silly how we got people stepping down so they could spend more time with family?



edit on (12/15/1717 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I think they should send in Nigerian Peacekeepers, like those ones accused of butchering and raping their way through the Congo. They would sort the gangs out and no messing. Plus, the added bonus is they are black so they can't be accused of racism.
edit on 15/12/2017 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Richard Boykin and Rahm Emanuel should be charged with treason. (imho)

This really sounds like the plot line of Foreign Enemies And Traitors



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Middle class intellectual black folks like Obama, Dyson, Sharpton, and many others don’t want to admit there is a social disease within the lower class black ghettoes that is spreading to the whole country. Now drugs are rampant in the suburbs…Gangs are even moving there.

It will probably get worse since they have no solution to this problem.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

You think they are using the word genocide to refer to gang violence?


No, I'm saying that based on the definition of genocide, one group of people (Hutu, Bloods, etc) wiping out another group or large portion of a group (Tutsi, Crips, etc) is technically genocide and that it doesn't only deal with ethnicity or religion. I'm using gangs as an example because gangs aren't an ethnicity nor a religion, but can still fall under the umbrella term of genocide if one kills a large portion of the other.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: stosh64

Trump is pushing for America first.
Silly how we got people stepping down so they could spend more time with family?




Its ironic that you bring that up. Chicago police steer clear of gangs, because the gangs will retaliate against the police officer's families. (That's where I got my idea about hitting terrorist's families.)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64


I once heard a little birdie say that any presence of armed foreign soldiers (including from the UN) on American soil will be treated as an invasion.

I concur with this line of thinking.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


The main cause of this disease is the lack of black fathers in the lives of their children.

Sadly this is due to draconian sentencing for non-violent crimes (while violent offenders are - in some cases - merely given probation and credit for time served) that disproportionately affects black males.

There is no justifiable reason to take these people out of their homes and away from their families over "crimes" that have no victim. Read: non-violent drug offenses, petit theft, etc. Yet less than 1% of felons caught in possession of a firearm will even be charged for their crime under federal law.

I'd also like to point out that gangs primarily subsist by trafficking in controlled items, which up until the turn of the 20th century were not even regulated. Oddly enough, it is during this time (partly because of another prohibition: alcohol) that gangs and organized crime really took hold and their numbers surged. Then, due to this relatively small number of criminals engaging in organized criminal enterprises, another type of prohibition was passed to fight these gangs their poorly planned laws created: the National Firearms Act, which forced citizens (for the first time) to pay a steep tax to acquire machineguns, SBSs, SBRs and other items. The NFA of course lead to the GCA, which banned new machineguns from being transferrable via NFA regulations (although new or old SBR, SBS, suppressors, etc are still transferrable or make-able under a different form)

The reason I included the anti-gun part is because it is helpful to illustrate exactly what steep prohibition of anything invariably causes.
1) They are still accessible, but only via black or grey markets (grey market as in: becoming an FFL SOT dealer, NFA trusts, etc or abusing legitimate physicians to obtain a controlled substances)
2) The black market prices are extremely inflated (legal pre-ban automatics cost upward of $20,000; cheap pharmaceuticals command far higher prices on the black market (according to this article on The Atlantic)
3) Criminal gangs and other organized crime are created from the demand these items create, and exist to ensure efficient operation and continued monetary gain.

I do not know what the solution is, but clearly prohibitions have failed. From the prohibition on alcohol (which was rectified a decade after it was conceived) onward. There have to be better solutions out there. I still believe it is actual crimes and actions that should be prosecuted, not the ambiguity that arises by merely "possessing" an article subject to a particular prohibition.

Anyone notice a problem here?
edit on 12/15/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I think the problem is Chicago isn't the worst example of city violence and Trump offering the National Guard might be considered a slap in the face or disrespecful. Remember Trump was supporting Stop & Frisk.

This lists the cities with the highest rate of violent crime per 100,000 people (i think circa 2013-14):
chicago.cbslocal.com - Violent Crime Statistics For Every City In America...

Notice a lot of cities have worse violent crime per 100,000 than Chicago. Of the 9348 cities listed, Chicago ranks 414th. The cities with 1,000,000 or more population are listed below:

Rank -- City -- Population -- Violent crime rate (per 100,000 pop)
290. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- 1,559,062 -- 1,021.45
315. Houston, Texas -- 2,219,933 -- 991.38
414. Chicago, Illinois -- 2,724,121 -- 884.29
473. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Nevada -- 1,530,899 -- 841.07
810. Dallas, Texas -- 1,272,396 -- 664.65
1011. New York, New York -- 8,473,938 -- 596.7
1086. Phoenix, Arizona -- 1,529,852 -- 571.89
1188. San Antonia, Texas -- 1,428,465 -- 539.32
1406. Los Angeles, California -- 3,906,772 -- 490.71
2020. San Diego, California -- 1,368,690 -- 380.95
2525. San Jose, California -- 1,009,679 -- 321.09

(From 8279 to 9348 the violent crime rate is 0. Not sure if that's lack of data or accurate.)

But look here:
ucr.fbi.gov - FBI - Violent Crime...

More specifically, here:
ucr.fbi.gov - FBI - Table 16...

Why does violent crime seem to go up (on average) in cities as population exceeds ~50,000, seeming to peak at ~750,000.

Here, the (average) violent crime rate for each population group listed (the GROUP classification is for cities):
GROUP I (250,000 and over) -- 730.1
....1,000,000 and over (Group I subset) -- 658.7
....500,000 to 999,999 (Group I subset) -- 874.4
....250,000 to 499,999 (Group I subset) -- 717.9
GROUP II (100,000 to 249,999) -- 461.8
GROUP III (50,000 to 99,999) -- 335.1
GROUP IV (25,000 to 49,999) -- 280.0
GROUP V (10,000 to 24,999) -- 264.0
GROUP VI (under 10,000) -- 282.5
METROPOLITAN COUNTIES -- 248.0
NONMETROPOLITAN COUNTIES -- 179.5
SUBURBAN AREA -- 239.8

So am I reading it right? That can't be what it seems to be.

Can dislike me for thinking of this, but after looking at the above, how can you blame me for conjuring it:

edit on 12/15/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


Those are not exactly accurate. They are in the sense that their data is real, but it is complicated by the fact that different events are reported differently and that not all "violent crime" is reported as violent crime. For instance, a gang shooting may be reported under a gang related designation, but not under violent crime.

A good example is the massacre in Newtown, CT. The FBI reports "0" for the number of murders for them in 2013, but only because it was reported as a school shooting (or mass shooting, I can't recall exactly).

Just something to keep in mind!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

He's probably going to suggest that it's quiet genocide because Trump isn't doing anything which really means Trump isn't doing exactly what they want him to instead of what he offered to do.

As another poster suggested - don't send us peacekeeping boots; send us money. And like any corrupt third world polity, it wouldn't make any good because it won't ever get to its intended source since that polity is as corrupt as DC.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Chicago has, in effect, admitted to a complete lack of ability to maintain control and security with-in its own borders. This is a failure of Chicago's elected leadership.

Those idiots are an embarrassment.

An increase in crime does not mean you invite a foreign army onto American soil...not to mention the illegality of such a request.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bphi1908

I doubt this twit is thinking legality. He's thinking warm and fuzzy. How on earth would any group ordered in by Trump (who hates all black people donchaknow) be interested in actually doing anything positive for black people? But the words "UN" and "peacekeeper" conjure up warm and fuzzy politically correct and multi-cultural images, so they naturally have to be all rainbows and unicorns.

That's all he's really thinking about.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: stosh64


I once heard a little birdie say that any presence of armed foreign soldiers (including from the UN) on American soil will be treated as an invasion.

I concur with this line of thinking.


I refrained, but kudos for bringing it up.


Amazing that Mayor Rahm refuses to address the violence issue and the culture behind it. The refusal to allow Trump to try and make a better life for the black families who are not affiliated with the violence associated with the ghetto mindset, but let's bring in foreign troops!!!!

If I was black and lived in Chicago? I would be going after this idiot who thought bring in the UN was a GOOD IDEA!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Folks can quote numbers or give valid reasons for this. However , they are all null and void. Any presence of foreign "troops" on US soil would be a direct violation of the Constitution and an open act of war. No one , not even the Commander in Chief has the right to approve this. No one.
Given this , anyone being a proponent of this idea has committed an act of subversion against the US and should be considered guilty of treason.
Period.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

This is all a lie. Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the US. As any liberal will tell you that means its safe and there is no "gun violence" there.


Someone said something like give them all guns and let it sort itself out. And it would, the crime rate would drop to all time low in a matter of weeks, if the law abiding people of chi-raq could carry.

The UN can't and won't do a damn thing in US streets. I for one, would see them as an invading force waging war on US citizens Just MHO



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GunzCoty
a reply to: stosh64

This is all a lie. Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the US. As any liberal will tell you that means its safe and there is no "gun violence" there.


Someone said something like give them all guns and let it sort itself out. And it would, the crime rate would drop to all time low in a matter of weeks, if the law abiding people of chi-raq could carry.

The UN can't and won't do a damn thing in US streets. I for one, would see them as an invading force waging war on US citizens Just MHO


I do believe the one thing the UN would accomplish would be child trafficking in the sex trade market. That's one thing they seem to be famous for but when it's brought up, "Oh! We are aware we have problems and we are working hard to put and end to it, however we just don't have enough money!".

Think I am making it up? Look at the UN and it's so called peacekeeping army and the snip the do and get away with! I would hope like hell that if their troops stepped foot on American soil people would shoot them on site!!!



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: stosh64


I once heard a little birdie say that any presence of armed foreign soldiers (including from the UN) on American soil will be treated as an invasion.

I concur with this line of thinking.


That is funny and kind of ironic, considering that the USA got soldiers stationed all around the world...



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Well how many times did I or some other members say this was going to happen and we were ridiculed for actually saying that this was part of the plan?...

What amazes me more is that after 6 days of this being in the forums it barely got any attention... After all the "that's never going to happen" claims made when anyone would point out any evidence that this was in the works and part of a globalist agenda, those people/members seem to have decided to ignore this.


edit on 21-12-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.







 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join