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.

 

NEWS: Two U.S. Border Patrol Agents Detained in Mexico

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

You have voted MaskedAvatar for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month

Here bloody here




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Shots


What I saw was more like statements with question marks behind each, hardly in the form a question should be asked.


You saw what you wanted to see. I asked two legitimate questions,
This is what you said, FYI.


Mexicans have been known to kill people for only a nickel, they will rob anyone..


To which I replied


Americans in America don't get robbed for nickels? People in this country aren't desperate?


Now that the two statements are right next to each other, can you please answer my question? (I assure you, they are questions.)



Be happy to once you place them in the form of a proper question the way they are formed now could be taken that you alone questioned them.




[edit on 5/5/2005 by shots]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
How To Always Be Wrong


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Educate yourself about gun laws overseas and crime rates, and you will be less tired of 12-year old debates that remain unresolved in your head.

This statement makes at least three false assumptions:

1) That I am not educated about gun laws overseas and crime rates

2) That the debates remain "unresolved in [my] head”

3) That knowing more about gun laws overseas and crime rates will make the ceaseless , reflexive repetition of propaganda memes any more tolerable to anyone

I advise against posting false assumptions about me because they undermine your own credibility while doing nothing to clarify who I am or what my position may be on a given issue (hint: my own).

What you're telling me here is that you have no idea who I am and don't care enough to actually find out.

Fair enough. I will indulge your publicly-expressed preference and leave you in the dark on this.

You are arguing with your own prejudice, not me.

The Need For Cleaner Mirrors


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Sweeping generalizations and fallacious assumptions about the correlation of gun control and crime rate reduction/increase are pointless in resolving your struggle.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I strongly recommend that everyone, yourself included, take them to heart, just as I do.

I'm willing to discuss issues like these with those who are actually willing to discuss them, but when people insist on punching at straw men instead, that's my cue to move on.

Meanwhile, I seriously doubt this painful old chestnut of a tangent has anything to do with what those border patrol agents were doing, or why they were searched and arrested.

Topic, O Topic, Wherefore Art Thou?



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
www.signonsandiego.com...

No charges have been pressed against these men, yet.

The deadline is Saturday for a Mexican Federal judge to decide whether the pair will be charged. The article does not specify whether they will be freed if charges are not pressed by this time.

They are still being held in the Mexicali jail at this time.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Ah, There We Go!

Roadscholar, thanks for the update, link and topical refresher.


Looks like the issue is the "military" ammo, which is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Mexico is a country which has different restrictions for "military" versus "non-military" firearms and ammunition.

Meanwhile, I hear the food at the Mexicali jail really isn't all that bad.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
No problemo!

I had gotten lost in this discussion a couple of pages back anyway...

Now, we don't know that this was "military" ammo per se.....they could have easily picked it up themselves. It's the hollowpoint factor that makes the difference, I believe.

The amount really wasn't that signifigant, but still certainly more than the law would allow into Mexico, and they had to have known it! We don't know that these guys were up to anything sinister, but they have certainly displayed some outstanding stupidity at the very least.

The whole issue smacks of irony, though.

How ironic that this should occur right on the tail end of the Minuteman Project? It sort of underscores the need for us to take a good hard look at our entire Border Patrol.

It also smacks me as highly ironic that these guys are hung out to dry over 1,300 rounds of ammo, when we've got the Zetas playing Godfather in Dallas! (props to Dr. Strangecraft for that link!)

At 3:00 A.M. I have no clue what it all means, but it certainly is ironic!



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The Military Factor


Originally posted by Roadscholar
Now, we don't know that this was "military" ammo per se.....they could have easily picked it up themselves. It's the hollowpoint factor that makes the difference, I believe.

I think the main issue under Mexican law is the caliber, although there may be restrictions regarding hollowpoints that I am unaware of.

In Mexico, certain calibers, such as 9mm Parabellum and 5.56mm rifle ammo are designated as "military" calibers, and are tightly controlled. The .40 S&W caliber may be similarly restricted.

I don't have a good English link for this, but in general, I think any firearms or ammo which are designated as "military" are prohibited to civilians, and penalties for violations are steep.

I may be wrong about some details, but I think that's basically the gist of it.

Perhaps one of our Mexican ATSers could share some insights? Assuming any Mexican ATSers could stomach following the thread up to this point, which is understandably doubtful.


And yes, this is just one plain fishy case.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Majic, kindly step down off your high horse for a moment. This is a discussion board and thats just what people are doing here. There is no rule in the T&C where it says "only facts stated in thread topics maybe discussed".

Its not even as if the 'gun laws' topic is off on a tangent here, its a thread revolving around Americans breaking gun laws in another country. What I and others have brought up is pertinent to this thread! If you are tired of reading about it then skim over the posts you cant be bothered reading, no one is holding a gun to your head


Trying to stymie our right to discussion of the larger issues surrounding this thread is not on. You might have gotten tired of discussing it 12 years ago but that doesnt me we all did. Have a bit of respect for other people on this forum and kindly grant us our T&C given right to discussion the pertinent issues.

[edit on 6/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
And The Horse I Rode In On


Originally posted by subz
Majic, kindly step down off your high horse for a moment. This is a discussion board and thats just what people are doing here. There is no rule in the T&C where it says "only facts stated in thread topics maybe discussed".

For the record, you're the one who claims that my horse is high. Thanks for the compliment, I suppose, but flattery is cheap.

I am quite satisfied with where I am, and will thoughtfully disregard your suggestions as to where I should or should not be.

My interest in sticking to the topic is legitimate, and expressing that opinion is also legitimate. You are free to consider or ignore my opinion as you see fit.

You can post whatever you want, and accept the consequences for doing so, just as I do.

I fail to understand why this apparently bothers you.

Doing Battle With One's Own Words


Originally posted by subz
Its not even as if the 'gun laws' topic is off on a tangent here, its a thread revolving around Americans breaking gun laws in another country. What I and others have brought up is pertinent to this thread! If you are tired of reading about it then skim over the posts you cant be bothered reading, no one is holding a gun to your head

Attempts to establish absurd and implausible links between Mexican guns laws, border patrol agents and the various cut and paste posts you are making in this thread is a very unconvincing argument, which I am exercising my right not to buy.

I am criticizing meaningless digressions, and encourage you to seek a better understanding of why I am doing so.

That Which Can Only Be Earned


Originally posted by subz
Trying to stymie our right to discussion of the larger issues surrounding this thread is not on. You might have gotten tired of discussing it 12 years ago but that doesnt me we all did. Have a bit of respect for other people on this forum and kindly grant us our T&C given right to discussion the pertinent issues.

Respect is a two-way street.

You have my firm commitment that I will show your opinions at least as much respect as you show mine.

In addition to that, you have my assurance that I will give your opinions all the consideration they merit.

You are free to interpret the meanings and effects of these policies as you see fit.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
For the record, you're the one who claims that my horse is high. Thanks for the compliment, I suppose, but flattery is cheap.

I am quite satisfied with where I am, and will thoughtfully disregard your suggestions as to where I should or should not be.


Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the English idiom, to be on a high horse.
MEANING: to behave with arrogance

Telling people what they can and cannot discuss here is arrogant.

arrogant - Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance

You are not a moderator and the discussion here is well within the parameters of the terms and conditions. I suggest you read them before trying to impose your own sensibilities on every one and the their expressions.


Originally posted by Majic
My interest in sticking to the topic is legitimate, and expressing that opinion is also legitimate. You are free to consider or ignore my opinion as you see fit.

The topic is not limited to merely the 2 border patrol agents. If it were there would be no replies to the original post as we know nothing of these specific individuals. The issues raised in this thread are many: Mexican gun laws and the difference between that of America, reasons why the 2 agents might of come to the circumstance they find themselves in, whether or not Mexico has the right to hold foreign nationals when they break the law in their country, whether or not these Americans should have consular access etc etc.

To say that we cannot show justification for our points of view on this subject by drawing on relevant issues is absurd.


Originally posted by Majic
You can post whatever you want, and accept the consequences for doing so, just as I do.

I fail to understand why this apparently bothers you.

I dont need your permission to post what I have done, thats what bothers me. Your lengthy diatribe on how youre tired of reading the same old arguments rehashed angered me as this is the place for such reading. To claim that anything not 100% brand new is not worth discussing is, once again, arrogant.

I dont like having my opinion supressed by some one who cant be bothered with the discussion. Youre in the wrong place if thats the way you feel and asking us to conform to your jaded views is infuriating.


Originally posted by Majic
Attempts to establish absurd and implausible links between Mexican guns laws, border patrol agents and the various cut and paste posts you are making in this thread is a very unconvincing argument, which I am exercising my right not to buy.

Whoah whoah whoah, back the horse up a bit. Can you elaborate on how gun death statistics and how different gun laws impact on countries is an implausible link to counter arguments that Mexico's stringent gun laws are unjustified?

If you made up your mind on that issue, fine, write a book about it. If you are not interested in delving into a rational and civil discussion YOU have the right not to buy it. What you dont have the right to do though is impose limits on me, and others, on what we can discuss.


Originally posted by Majic
I am criticizing meaningless digressions, and encourage you to seek a better understanding of why I am doing so.

And thats what im calling you up on. You have no right to criticise what you interpret as "meaningless digressions", you are not a moderator, your opinion is not supported by the T&C of this board.

I have no wish to understand the reasoning behind your jaded opinions and why you seek to stymie open discussion which you deem unworthy.


Originally posted by Majic
Respect is a two-way street.

You have my firm commitment that I will show your opinions at least as much respect as you show mine.

I dont respect your right to dictate what can and cannot be discussed here. What I do respect is your opinions pertaining to the topic. Your diatribe actually hijacked this thread more than any other post, quite ironic when you think about it.


Originally posted by Majic
In addition to that, you have my assurance that I will give your opinions all the consideration they merit.

Dont try and insult my intelligence by sugar coating an insult. I dont give a damn if you dont like my expressed opinon on gun laws, I really dont. What I do care about though is people trying to brow-beat people into not discussing topics, even when they are clearly relevant, purely because they're personally tired of reading about it.


Originally posted by Majic
You are free to interpret the meanings and effects of these policies as you see fit.

You're damn right I am and until I break this:


From the ATS T&C:

13.) You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding"). You will also not create threads or post messages announcing your departure from the board unless approved by me


Your lengthy and verbose diatribes will not deter me.

Unless you continue to express an intention to stymie discussion pertinent to this topic and its broader implications I consider this aspect of the thread closed.

[edit on 6/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Arrogance By Example

Let's close this aspect of the discussion with an accurate examination of what is being discussed, instead.


Originally posted by subz
Telling people what they can and cannot discuss here is arrogant.

I agree, which is why I don't do that. I'm sure you will be happier in life if you should eventually decide to do likewise.

A good rule of thumb is that those who accuse others of arrogance are usually the most guilty of it.

My favorite example of this is the classic spectacle of French and Americans accuse one another of being arrogant. The irony is that both are absolutely right -- at least, with respect to those doing the actual finger-pointing.

If arrogance truly bothers you, I recommend doing a little housecleaning on your end.

Gross Conceptual Error


Originally posted by subz
You have no right to criticise what you interpret as "meaningless digressions", you are not a moderator, your opinion is not supported by the T&C of this board.

The hypocrisy of this statement is self-evident.

You are declaring what I can or cannot criticize, and accusing me of doing likewise. Yet I have not done so.

At no point in this thread have I ever dictated to you what you can or cannot post. If you have an example, I strongly recommend quoting it, because I can't find one, and I looked very carefully.

I have expressed at length what I think is topical, relevant and interesting to me. I have done so very clearly, and in every case, made sure to also assert that other members may post whatever they want.

You're right. I'm not a moderator. No moderator on this board has ever had the gall to dictate to me what you are impotently attempting to. No moderator has ever forbidden me from criticizing "meaningless digressions".

Yet you do. “Arrogance” is hardly a strong enough word for that.

Willful Ignorance

It amazes me that you could repeatedly ignore my frequent and adamant assertions that you are free to post what you chose. That philosophy is a core value of mine, and reflected in all my posts on ATS, including previous posts to this thread.

Do any of these sound familiar?


Originally posted by Majic
You can play this pointless game if you like, but this is where I move on to something more worthwhile.

You can post about what a bunch of violent cowboys we are and how guns are evil. That's fine too

If you want to indulge in polarized thinking, knock yourself out.

Have fun, if that's what such a thing really is, but don't expect me to stay long when the party devolves into a thoughtless, drunken brawl.

You can post whatever you want, and accept the consequences for doing so, just as I do.

If only I had the good sense to “move on to something more worthwhile” earlier. Yet I linger, because I think what we're supposedly discussing here is important.

You could take my advice and simply disagree on the topic and post what you want. For my part, I maintain that I am free to disagree with your choice, but not empowered in any way to stop you from making it.

You could simply ignore me altogether, and that is entirely within your prerogative to do so if you choose.

Instead, you defame me by accusing me of transgressions I have not committed -- yet commit yourself by doing so. Stunning, really.

You might find it helpful to re-read my posts to this thread, as I just did, to see where you're going off track.

You seem to have lost touch with what has actually been said here, and are digging yourself a very deep hole that leads nowhere by doing so.

Screaming At The Mirror

Essentially, you are berating me for exercising the very same freedom of opinion you falsely accuse me of seeking to deny to you.

In other words, the “crime” you are accusing me of is having an opinion that is different from yours.

I advise that you get used to it, because we apparently differ on some very fundamental elements of topical discussion, and you are not making a very good case for your point of view which, based on your own words, is that you are empowered to determine what is topical and I am not.

Don't worry about me, I can take care of myself. Like I said, I will give your opinions all the respect and consideration they deserve, and I am faithfully keeping my end of the bargain.

The bigger problem in this case is that you are arguing with yourself, not me.

I can't help you with that. You're going to have to make peace with yourself without my help.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
*sigh* Fine you want to continue this limp wristed argument, I've got time to kill, why not.

Heres how I interpreted your first passive-aggressive diatribe.


Some quotes from your first post
-What I Don't Come Here For
-pointless game
-move on to something more worthwhile
-I really find the idea of Europeans lecturing Americans on pacifism supremely ironic
-such vile, ignorant commentary.
-Nationalistic Bigotry
-devolving
-drivel
-such wastes of time
-not interesting to me
-I got tired of reading these exact same opinions on the Internet about twelve years ago, and time hasn't made them any more appealing to me.
-I'm sick of “America is God's gift to the world” versus “Europeans are morally superior to violent Yankees”.
-Both statements are assertions of gross ignorance and cultural chauvinism
-dichotomistic bullcrap
-I sure as heck have no use for it.
-polarized thinking

Just what exactly was the purpose of that post? Was it just an expression of your resentment? Or was it your way of criticising my posts in an effort to shut me up?

I interpreted it as you wanting me to stop posting because you are "tired of reading these exact same opinions". If I took that wrong then I apologise but your firey rhetoric left little wiggle room for interpretation. You were pissed off at having to read through my "dichotomistic bullcrap", which is a little futile complaining about dichotomy on a messageboard. You likend my post to being just one of the millions of indulgent polarised posts on net which degrades my opinion and devalues it.

You contrasted my post to what you "come here for" and found my post to be lacking. I took that as an expression of you not wanting to see posts like mine. Correct?

If I was to sumarise your post it was that your tired of reading nationalistic biggoted drivel, such as mine, and you dont want to see it here on ATS. Youre portraying my opinion to be inferior and not acceptable for reading here on ATS.

You also posted later:

Topic, O Topic, Wherefore Art Thou?


topical refresher


My interest in sticking to the topic is legitimate, and expressing that opinion is also legitimate. You are free to consider or ignore my opinion as you see fit.


Was this your way of calling for the "tangent" we'd apparently dragged this thread off to be dropped? Thus wanting us to stop our discussion?

If that was not your intentions fine.

Superfluous topical division headline
As for the rest of your posts you start by proclaiming "How To Always Be Wrong" with regards to MaskedAvatar's post which is not arrogant behaviour now is it.

You also went on to "advise against posting false assumption" which I can see you adhere to yourself with regard to calling me a biggoted nationalist.

You call my posts "meaningless digressions", how else can that be interpreted? You expect me to read that and not take offence?

Free to post what I choose but you attack it, not based on the facts but on your tiredness of the topic and reluctance to give it any more air time.

Solution?Dont degrade peoples posts. If you are that tired of the issue then refrain from weighing in in the first place.

[edit on 6/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This is not the Debate forum, come to think of it, this type of debate wouldn't be allowed there. Let's keep to the topic please, without the sniping.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Motion Carried


Originally posted by intrepid
This is not the Debate forum, come to think of it, this type of debate wouldn't be allowed there. Let's keep to the topic please, without the sniping.

Moved and seconded.

So, um, how 'bout them border patrol agents?

Is this just a little misunderstanding or the next Hainan spy plane incident?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join