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.

 

Beware of the Patriot Act! Taking pictures of Trains is illegal!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Shaker the problem that the pro gun lobby ignores is that 200 years ago the general population carried the same weapons as there military counter parts that isnt the case today.
Even if you wanted to have modern military weapons in your home how would you afford them?

I understand that point there. What I was saying was that, even though we'd have inferior weaponry, we can still take the better weapons after an engagement. Say a couple hundred militia members ambushed a military convoy resupplying a base in the middle of nowhere, wipes them out. Now you have better weapons for the next battle. Surviving vehicles, surviving supplies, and not to mention the personal weapons from the soldiers. That's what I was getting at.


While its true guerilla warfare has defeated great powers you have to take into account the facts.
For example T.E Lawrence took advantage of the deserts in the middle east because he knew the Turks didnt venture into the desert.
The Viet Cong took advantage of the fact that jungle warfare wasnt a focus of the US military.

What advantage will you have over the US military?

Small numbers. With good leadership comes good stragegy too. well.. sometimes... Gaining from smaller battles allows for better chances in the bigger battles. Militia would gain experience and proficiency in handling weapons gained.


I have seen the images on TV of armed people being forced from there homes after hurricane Katrina.
How do you know people will use there hand guns to fight ?

There's the rub, because you don't. People in general won't just stand up and fight on their own. Usually it takes something very heinous to make this happen. Things will probably start with small groups and escalate as public opinion sways. If that doesn't happen you'll probably end up with more Waco style events.

So back on topic... dumb idea to try and stop people from taking pictures...


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Shaker]




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shaker

I understand that point there. What I was saying was that, even though we'd have inferior weaponry, we can still take the better weapons after an engagement. . Surviving vehicles, surviving supplies, and not to mention the personal weapons from the soldiers. That's what I was getting at.


While I dont doubt that you could capture modern weapons.
Would the Militia know how to maintain them?
Mind you there will probaly be a geek somewhere who would able to help you.





There's the rub, because you don't. People in general won't just stand up and fight on their own. Usually it takes something very heinous to make this happen.


Isnt is it a bit late to act after a heinous has taken place?
I hope your militia lives long enough to gain experiance.
For your sake I also hope there is a TE Lawrence waiting in the wings.

How is it that I live in a country without widespread gun ownership and yet I have the freedom to take photos of trains?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
America for the most part is sheltered from the rest of the world, only a small number pay attention to world news and events, Most americans realy dont care to pay attention to these things, they are content on there lives without a care in the world, They dont see all the stuff thats going on around us, They dont know there history enough to realize these vary events happened not even 100 years ago, Sure they have herd about the nazis, and ww2, but they dont know about the things that happened which set off the whole mess, some things are so similar its scary..

Ive said it before and ill say it again, the time most realize whats going on it will be to late.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
That's it, I'm going to carry at least 3 cameras with me at all times at train stations. And wear a t-shirt that says, "I like taking pictures of trains."


Someone please remind me of what country I live in, please!

Who is smoking all the crack and making all these dumb laws?


Crap, we may only have the right soon to stay in the house and play video games. "Oh, wait, I'm sorry, those wires on the controll pads could be used to choke people. Sir, we're going to have to ask you to put down that deadly weapon." When does the madness stop?

Troy



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
That's it, I'm going to carry at least 3 cameras with me at all times at train stations. And wear a t-shirt that says, "I like taking pictures of trains."


Someone please remind me of what country I live in, please!

Who is smoking all the crack and making all these dumb laws?


Crap, we may only have the right soon to stay in the house and play video games. "Oh, wait, I'm sorry, those wires on the controll pads could be used to choke people. Sir, we're going to have to ask you to put down that deadly weapon." When does the madness stop?

Troy


I'm with you there Troy, this is because I have at the least FIFTY trains a day roll by my house on any given day. I cannot believe that they want to make it against the law to take a pic of a train. As for who's smokin' the crack, it's a vast majority of the paranoid Congressman in D.C. that smokin' the crack or crank. I'm afraid that the madness is just in it's beginning stages.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Shawdo how will hand guns defend against the use of WMDs?
Why would the US gov bother fighting a Iraq type war?



First off the american people have alot more then handguns. Millions of assualt rifles, shotguns and sniper rifles like the BMG 50cal that are the equal of any sniper rifle the military uses.

But WMDs? So now whatever secret NWO police state goverment wants a radioactive wasteland to rule over? The US wont even use small tactical nukes on remote mountains in afghanistan but they are going to use massive strategic nukes on its self


See if your going to make a Police state you need someone to police. What a great plan using nukes on itself you woud turn a super power into one of the largest third world countries over night. Wow they are smart instead of ruling a world power then can rule a devasted waste of a country.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
That's my question Shadow, I mean why would the NWO want to use nukes on the people that they are trying to rule over. That really makes no sense why they would want to do that.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It dont make sense to me either. People want keep power they have and more power. Ruling a superpower or ruling a massive third world country seems like a no brainer which would give you more power.

Covert control over a superpower or overt power over a third world country I know which I would pick.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I'm like you, I would want to have covert control over a superpower. Imagine what you could do with the powers that's in your posession. Why would you want to have overt control of a third world country anyway?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


See if your going to make a Police state you need someone to police. What a great plan using nukes on itself you woud turn a super power into one of the largest third world countries over night. Wow they are smart instead of ruling a world power then can rule a devasted waste of a country.


Really?
Saddam used WMDs against the people of Iraq without as much of a 2nd thought. Somehow I doubt that any "future" Saddams of America would care about theeffects of WMDs.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Really?
Saddam used WMDs against the people of Iraq without as much of a 2nd thought.


Yeah he gassed a few thousand kurds that were a ethnic minority in Iraq in a nation of millions that had a dramatic effect. He was already the supreme leader at the time and Iraq wasnt exactly a world power to begin with.

For the US military to police the US they would have to gas more then a few thousand people more then a few million. They just dont have close to enough man power when the population is armed.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Shawdo last time I checked a sniper rifle wont prevent Aircraft from dropping WMDs. I doubt that any rogue government would give much thought to who they kill.
How would you stop Aircraft from carpet bombing an area with chemical weapons?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
That's it, I'm going to carry at least 3 cameras with me at all times at train stations. And wear a t-shirt that says, "I like taking pictures of trains."


Someone please remind me of what country I live in, please!

Who is smoking all the crack and making all these dumb laws?


Crap, we may only have the right soon to stay in the house and play video games. "Oh, wait, I'm sorry, those wires on the controll pads could be used to choke people. Sir, we're going to have to ask you to put down that deadly weapon." When does the madness stop?

Troy


ROFL cybertroy thats what I would say! Whenever the news comes on and they make a stupid law I look at Bush and say, "What are smoking!?" and they some how skip around the Bill of Rights. Its almost as if the Constitution does not matter anymore. The Patriot Act Violates like 1 million amendments. At least 2 on the Bill of Rights. The Congress is stupid. Since there all Republicans they pass anything that gets into their hot little hands. They did not even read the Patrito Act.

My theory stays, I think that one member from each party should have to vote yes so people on either side can't just pass laws right and left. Except that socialist guy. He can stay in his little communist corner of the world. If no member from the opposing party says yes. They should have to discuss what the law would do for the country and how it would improve it. This goes for all parties. Democrat, Republican, and Communist *cough* I mean socialist *cough*.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Also Have any of you seen that one train episode of the X-Files in the third season? Well they carry lepers on trains in these containment rooms. Very interesting episode. They find this bomb in a train.

Anyway trains are really cool. Not letting people take pictures of trains is just basically like saying, "look there is a conspiracy over here!"

I mean the ironic thing is that once they say you can't take pics, then people start doing it! LOL



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
By the way, that crash only killed eight, not two-hundred like you thought it would have. The chemical involved in that crash was Chlorine….

I'm with you there Troy, this is because I have at the least FIFTY trains a day roll by my house on any given day. I cannot believe that they want to make it against the law to take a pic of a train. As for who's smokin' the crack, it's a vast majority of the paranoid Congressman in D.C. that smokin' the crack or crank. I'm afraid that the madness is just in it's beginning stages.


This is the whole point though, isn’t it? The point is that they do not want some hobbyist accidentally letting out photographs that can be used to track a regular shipment of something like this and using it against us. Like if you shot a picture of every train that passed by your house every day and posted it, don’t you think that they might be able to glean some information on the timing and routes of some sensitive transported cargos?


Originally posted by gimmefootball400
That's my question Shadow, I mean why would the NWO want to use nukes on the people that they are trying to rule over. That really makes no sense why they would want to do that.


Its all about the dwindling resources, they want to think out the population to protect the resources for themselves and their future generations. To them why have 10 million people eat up the resources just so you can rule them, when you can rule 5 million and only use up half the resources.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Actually there is a very good reason to want to kill off a large portion of those you would like to rule. As long as you can give a reason (true or not) of how they are a threat to the rest, or as long as it cant be traced to you.

If you killed a large portion of those you would look to rule over and didnt have a reason or it was traceable without reason whats left would turn on you. Overal we are easy to control when we beleieve circumstances favor us (again wheter true or not). Once people beleive it is not in their best interest to obey they won't.

Once again I do beleive a large worldwide war/epidemic would be needed for any would be NWO to come about. There is no other way that enough people around the world would bow before any one goverment or group of people. (The "Saviors")

So the choices in a large scale US uprising for the goverment would be.

Convential War - Unwinnable although bloody and long. Many in our armed forces would simply abandon their posts. Other's would join the revolt (as in history). Of course many would stay but as we all know even with a full army you could never suppress a large scale revolt in a country this size by convential means.

Chemical Warfare - Unwinnable also. Chem warfare would directly link back to those using it and thus turn even more of the regular armed forces against their masters. It would also make land unusable and hamper efforts to pass through those areas. Parts of the economic and production infrastructure would be devastated for years to come.

Nuclear Warfare - Unwinnable again. Much the same reasons as Chem warfare but many times over.

Biological Warfare- Possibly winnable. With a bio attack virus's, bacteria, etc.. could be unleashed with little trace of its origins. Vaccines could be made available to those loyal/allied. Thus you slowly kill off / torture your enemies and make more friends. Those wanting to live join you, the rest die. Of course that would take impecable execution or it would end up the same as the others.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I was thinking Bio warfare would be the best way to take out a population of uncooprative people.

I got a great quote from ben Franklin the otherday. See over here we have new laws like the patriot act but there called somthing else & not many people know about them & i know almost all my friends think that the goverment should have more power & control over us. I even heard some of my female friends say they wont there kid's eletronicly tagged!!!

We dont even have the rifles or pistols to rise up if we wonted to & British people wouldnt fight for there freedoms anyway we are to fritened of offending someone & being called racist or it would'nt be Politocally Correct.

Anyway this quote went like this.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

I think that Ben would be pretty outraged at people of today. Maybe i am totaly parinoid maybe i play games like half life & Deus Ex to much but imo these laws arnt there to keep us safe. Id cards banning of personal firearms, ban on trainspotters etc none of that would make any differnce to the determined terroist. They are simply there to monitor and & maintian us & just see how much we will let them walk all over us & we let them everytime. The only time a polition wants anyting off me is when he is begging me for my X next to his name after that there just deaf to anyhting but there own agenders.

Sorry the post is so off topic with the author.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I believe that a bio-chem attack would wipe out more people, but you want to rule over those people that are in an uprising against you. Now how did the Bush idiots think that if you are take pictures of a train, you are some how, some way helping the terrorists plot their next attack. That false sense of security must have gotten to what was left of their brains, that's if they had a brain to begin with. If you want to know the truth, it would be damn near impossibel to blow up a train. We railfans know what suspicious activities to look for in and around the tracks.

1. Suspicious packages or someting out of the ordinary next to the tracks.
2. People taking pictures of the tracks instead of an approaching train.
3. Unknown persons taking photographs of train stations and platforlms
4. Persons taking pictures of railyards or depots using a special type of camera.
5. People placing any sort of object on the tracks or at a station platform

Those are just a few signs to look for.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Hi defcon,

We can conceivably say anything could be used in terrorism or some sort of violent act, but I don't believe that errecting ridiculous amounts of laws is any way to live. The laws will be a tremendous burden at that point. I for one can't lock myself in a cube, watching "Survivor," and avoid living life, while everything around me is "bubble wrapped." You too will become tired of the coming laws.

I mean, what's next, our kitchen knives taken away, and everyone forced to eat pudding, because terrorists could break in and steal them and use them for weapons? Am I going to be fined for farting in public, because a spark may ignite me and pose a fire hazard? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Troy

[edit on 17-11-2005 by cybertroy]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by cybertroy]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   


Now how did the Bush idiots think that if you are take pictures of a train, you are some how, some way helping the terrorists plot their next attack. That false sense of security must have gotten to what was left of their brains, that's if they had a brain to begin with.


Yes it seems when Bush and CO make laws they almost imply that trains are millitary trucks, so it seems like they're the ones that are helping the terrorits, not us.

Just like when Bush said "we do not torture." But then Cheney is trying to get the CIA exempted from the torture ban. Its like, "what?" you just said that you didin't torture people but you need the CIA exempted from the ban? I mean Americans have to realise something is going on. It just doesn't make sense.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join