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.

 

Why We Haven't Had More Attacks Before Bush!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Are you telling us that when the Constitution was first penned, the American people should have been informed that they are subject to arrest and detainment indefinitely without charge or due process by any president that fails to protect them?

Why did Benjamin Franklin tell us that they who consent to give up a measure of their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security?

Why does Bush and his supporters ignore this quotation from Ben Franklin and refuse to comment about it? You telling us America must be stupid even when it was first formed?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]


I think that I have a handle on what you are asking.

First. It is not the duty of the President to protect anyone, ask the Supreme Court.
Second. Where have any American Citizens been arrested and held without due process?
Third. The American people have had their personal liberties erroded by government. We have allowed politicians to pass laws using the excuse that they are for our own good. A few that come to mind are: the 21 drinking age, seatbelt laws, DUI check points, the majority of gun laws, to name a few. Think about this. The State of Pennsylvania considers driving a car to be a privledge. Why have we allowed our government to think that it can grant it's citizen's privledges?

I don't think that the founders of the United States were stupid. I do think that our world has evolved into something that they could never have forseen. It is our fault that we have been too preoccupied with our selves that we have allowed control of our country to fall to the leaders of the two main political parties.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by tmac100
I keep hearing all this junk about the USS Cole, etc.

Those things to us were more acts of war. We always had acts of war.



I'd say flying jet aircraft into buildings killing thousands of people would qualify as an act of war!


I'd say me asking then why since the beginning of this nation you guys are telling us our leaders should have told us we were subject to indefinite arrest and detainment on accusation without due process, is valid. And you guys evading that question is natural for internal terrorists and traitors.

You still didn't answer the question. The reason is not mental retardation.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Tmac, here is something I have to say, we had many terrorist attacks long before Bush the second came to power, plain and simple. The 9/11 attacks was not the first on American soil. Nor was it the first terrorist attacks against Americans. End of discussion, already answers your question.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
No more time to waste with Crakeur or those who pretend to be dunce so that their agenda can go forward. After being dared to answer the question, he left it flat with pretense that he didn't.

We conclude that the further back we go is the more laxed were our presidents' policies on terror and yet the more we didn't have to worry about it.

Terrorism in our day more centers upon Middle Eastern Muslim extremists, or Arabs. It was those people Bush struggled to have a port deal, all naturally unnoticed by the fifth-column treason alliance even on the internet. The "Conspiracy theorists" would notice something wrong with this, and the fifth-column treason army would notice something wrong with noticing.

Next another evades the question by asking again who has been denied due process. That is not the question that balances against the wording of the Patriot Act. Even if no one has been denied due process, it is on paper that they are to be denied these benefits we conclude ONLY Bush and his vast propaganda team must suffer from.

Again, for the fourth time:

Is it true that since terrorism was always around as my grandfather never knew, and Bush has the best policies against it to tell Americans he can destroy them based on a mere accusation where they will have no recourse at all to even clear their names...

Should George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others have told the American people they should go back to the Inquisitions the very day they won their liberties?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Deltaboy,

I don't want to hear your jesuit oath repeats anymore. If you can't answer my questions for obvious reasons, state those obvious reasons and leave. Or at least tell us why you cannot see clear questions and would not pass on the Judge Judy Show.

Even the question about the Patriot Act being "a vital law" only now since Bush is being deliberately ignored by you guys who can't sleep if anyone, in his free rights, believe there is a conspiracy.

That is far better than wasting space on this system evading questions with reptitive statements that could never get by Judge Judy.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Deltaboy,

I don't want to hear your jesuit oath repeats anymore. If you can't answer my questions for obvious reasons, state those obvious reasons and leave. Or at least tell us why you cannot see clear questions and would not pass on the Judge Judy Show.


No... your question as to why we haven't had more attacks before Bush and not acknowledging the terrorist events before 9/11 shows how ignorant you are which is the topic you posted. Either you slept through all those terrorist attacks against Americans in the last few decades or you just don't give a dam.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I also was rather confused with the style of English in the posts in this thread. But if I have grasped the usage correctly, I will take a stab at the question(s) at hand.

The Patriot Act, created by the legislative branch, is to give federal and (to a degree) local law enforcement agencies, the executive branch, to collect, collate and share information on illegal and potentially dangerous activities that is obtained under information gathering techniques that required permission and lengthy protocols from the judicial branch. The Patriot Act has an expiration date, which was renewed, to continue expedited investigations into protecting American civilians. Checks and Balances that keep the US a republic (despite what is taught in schools, we were never a true democracy under the US Constitution) still apply.

As for the thought that this power is dangerous to the stability of our country then look at the past. Lincoln declared emergency powers to combat Confederate espionage during the Civil War (which was fought over a State‘s right to cede from the US and was not fought “to free the slaves” as was taught in school). Senator McCarthy was particularly rapid about finding and ousting the “Red Menace” of Communism to the point that it did effect the lives and careers of many people in the Movie Industry to the point that competing studios would “leak (or threaten to leak) ” information on other directors, actors and producer to remove (or manipulate better contracts) them from Hollywood in the 30’s-50’s. Or perhaps you like the story of the Salem Witchcraft Trials better?

As for the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1826, except during Napoleon’s rule in 1808-1812) , which was the Spanish Crown and the Roman Catholic Church realizing that money and land could be obtained from the descendants of converts (mostly Jewish and Muslim) that practiced (or suspected of practicing) “heresy” (non-Catholic dogma) were tortured until the verdict of “Guilt by Admission” or “Guilt by Denial” was reached. This is one of the foundations that “Separation of Church and State”, “Freedom of Religion”, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” and “Trial by Jury of Peers” originated from. I will hazard the guess that schools still do not teach this as well.

Now if you really want to be scared look at all the agencies that were eliminated and combined into the Department of Homeland Security. www.dhs.gov...
By the reorganization of all these agencies into one authority, Checks and Balances, by investigation from outside departments, is left to internal investigation within the DHS (as even the FBI lost some power and agents). As the NRA proudly admits “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” leaving the public trust for policing the DHS to DHS Internal Affairs would be akin to letting LAPD IA to investigate and rule on Rodney King. The media (which I personally do not trust) will not be able to shed light on any misdoings of DHS unless it is glaring obvious that something happened due to the nature of DHS work falling under the auspices of National Security.

As for the Bush Administration conspiring to take over America/World/pile left by my dog Lucky in the backyard…it simply can not happen for two reasons. 1) As a US citizen, I have the US Constitution to protect me. The second amendment grants me the ability to legally remove the US Government by force when all other forms of communication (petition of grievance by letter, media, speech and assembly , et al) have been ignored. 2) Self determination and free will. By that I mean, I have the ability to commit suicide as the ultimate “No, F You!” than to face subjugation under an authority that I can not defeat by any other means than to remove its power by removing its base. Just as an god ceases to exist when it has no followers a regime is no longer in power when it has no people.

(to be continued)



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
(continued)

For those that truly believe that George W. Bush, a man that can not pronounce an ungodly amount of common words in his native language, has the ability to manifest “Ultimate Power” really need to stop, take a deep breath and examine just exactly is “not quite right” around themselves. Because I can only recommend counseling if you are ready to accept that maybe these fears are manifested from within yourself. Now, I can not tell you much about George W. because I have not met him. But I can tell you about his father. During the 1988 campaign he made a speech in Oxford, OH and myself and group of others in my AP Government class went to hear the speech to give a report. I decided to wear a suit to dress nice. Against a crowd of college kids at Miami University, I stuck out like a sore thumb. With my dark sunglasses on and the fact that he was VP at the time. Many of them thought I was a Secret Service agent. No big deal, right? While standing not more than 20 feet from the second in command of the most powerful country in the world, and having a wide berth around me, I inadvertently gave a signal that it was time to get off the stage. Bush Sr. snapped a salute to the crowd and did a quick about face and started to leave the stage. Representative Jim Buchy (Ohio State House of Rep, who knew me personally) stopped him and Bush pointed towards me. Bush came back out, started waving again to the crowd looked at me a winked and smiled. Jim Bushy came down and asked me if I wanted to meet Bush and I asked him if he thought if I had embarrassed him enough for one day.

I guess my point would be, if the former Director of the CIA/Current VP/Future President of the United States could not tell the difference between a 17 year old in a cheap suit and a Secret Service Agent from 20 feet away, then what is the chance that his son could take over the US/World by having a piece of legislation that was written by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court to expedite information gathering and make arrests for trial of terrorist groups while in a Congress approved War of Terror?

Now I am sure the question of the detainees in Gitmo will be raised at this point. Now, I may be wrong but to my knowledge none them were captured in the US and some have been released to other countries at that country’s request. As for the Geneva Convention, that is another story and is still in debate if the Geneva Convention applies or has actually been broken. As far as the extension of being covered under US Constitution protections…I would say no, due to not being US Citizens.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Fifth time to someone who sprawled his own characteristics on me, here talking to Deltaboy:

Is it true then, since terrorism was always around and Bush has the best policy against terror, that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson should have told us they have the right to detain Americans on mere suspicion without charge or due process?

Did they tell us that a President becomes king merely by failing to protect us? Some said that Bush didn't protect us because he wasn't responsible. This after Bush claims he must be made king so that he can keep his promise to protect us, and after the Fourth Reich propaganda team told us 911 took place because Bill Clinton failed to protect us.

There is the question again. Please show us some more what ignorance is and repeat your wily arts. Much time and space wasted as usual because you saw the question and knew it was suicidal to answer.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The Geneva Conventions were broken and violated. That's why there is all this talk about a "New Day" where we must reward a president who fails to protect us and does not blush for the failure under the IQs of the new psychiatrists.

It is then important for them to put this issue under confusion. We seemed to have known what it was until Bush came along. After the Geneve Convention declarations were given, it is highly improbable that all would go back to their homes from that event without them understanding what it clearly meant and entailed.

The United States is to offer proper respect to all because it is not a ruthless regime as it will accuse its enemies it goes to war against. After trial then is punishment issued.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Fifth time to someone who sprawled his own characteristics on me, here talking to Deltaboy:

Is it true then, since terrorism was always around and Bush has the best policy against terror, that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson should have told us they have the right to detain Americans on mere suspicion without charge or due process?

There is the question again. Please show us some more what ignorance is and repeat your wily arts.



No.. your question is bringing up the point as if what would our founding fathers would have done in times of terrorism. At the time, terrorism was not a very known word. These men were living in the 18th and early 19th century, not the 20th or 21st century. You could say that Jefferson when dealing with threats to Americans sent the entire U.S. navy to pretty much kicked those Muslim pirates butt that were kidnapping American sailors with the resources and methods at the time he had at his disposal. However in today's society in a situation where terrorists are supposedly civilians fighting militarily, the founding fathers may or may not have instigated a Patriot Act equivalent based on the situation they faced. Its all based on what if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or even Benjamin Franklin ( if he had became president) do. Something we cannot answer. However to detain American citizens without trial is something the founding fathers may or may not be jittery about. Even I would want to know what they views be if they were alive today and how they dealt with this situation.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Fifth time to someone who sprawled his own characteristics on me, here talking to Deltaboy:

Is it true then, since terrorism was always around and Bush has the best policy against terror, that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson should have told us they have the right to detain Americans on mere suspicion without charge or due process?

Did they tell us that a President becomes king merely by failing to protect us? Some said that Bush didn't protect us because he wasn't responsible. This after Bush claims he must be made king so that he can keep his promise to protect us, and after the Fourth Reich propaganda team told us 911 took place because Bill Clinton failed to protect us.

There is the question again. Please show us some more what ignorance is and repeat your wily arts. Much time and space wasted as usual because you saw the question and knew it was suicidal to answer.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



Direct Answers:
Founding Fathers could not have possiblly foreseen the events of 9/11/2001 in 1776-1789, but laid foundations for expansion of US Constitutions by means of Admemdments. Unlawful Detainment and Due Process were added under Admendments and were not part of the orignal work. Given their flair at the time, I would say they would have "laid the smack down" and nuked any country that said "No."

The President is not King under US Constitution. Bush has not proclaimed himself King of US. There is no Fourth Reich currently in place nor reccognised by US Constitution nor by Act of Congress.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Terrorism was all around and you would not know what the Forefatthers would have done against it?

Why not beg them to ask their ancestors what they would have done against it since it was all around and Middle Eastern Muslim extremists were always around again?

Next, is the ignoring of what Benjamin Franklin said to the tenor of...

They who would submit a measure of their liberties for limited security deserve neither liberty nor security.

This shows clearly that the American forefathers would never have gone back to the Inquisitions.

They just came out of it!

The American forefathers were not prepared against terrorism because they didn't know what could happen over something you claim was always around?

Terror attacks were happening against Israel for decades and America was considered impregnable to it before Bush came. Who is saying we knew nothing about it? Remember Tommy Thompson asking why the terrorist don't attack the American food supply since it was such an easy thing to do? So easy, no terrorist has done it yet. What Tommy established is an excuse for allowing that tragedy we never had to worry about before the New World Order infiltraitors came.

Even though some attacks actually came here and were growing (due to the further infiltration of the strange people demanding a New World Order) it was considered impregnable to terrorism before Bush.

It is not American policy that if one president stands out because he failed to protect us, he must be made king. Only in foul smelling IQs can such a thing be justified.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, I read a report of a small plane straying into airspace that had the Kremlin leaders turning colors in embarrassment.

Planes flew into our space and snuffed out 3,000 lives. Bush never turns red, but proudly plays pictures of his failure in his 2004 re-election campaign. You guys are sent to cover over his anti-American insanity. You must, because you possess the same.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100

Terror attacks were happening against Israel for decades and America was considered impregnable to it before Bush came.


Impregnable before Bush? Where were you back in 1993 attacks on the towers?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
If many people are having problems even understanding what the creator of this thread is trying to say, than I think the problem exists with the creator of the thread and their "style" of writing. I've read through this thread and have ended up concentrating on the responses in hopes of finding a glimmer of meaning. So far, none found, really.

Maybe you all are humoring this person way too much?

Another possibilty ...

John Titor, is that really you???? (might explain the strange style of writing if this guy is from the future, or maybe even an alien).

[edit on 6/15/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I'm sorry poster, but I don't understand your style of writing.

I sure proved you wrong, using your methods!

Now to Deltaboy:

America was regarded as impregnable to terrorism before Bush. This was repeatedly mentioned by many news reports under the nose of Deltaboy asking me if I slept during the history of this nation, until I can ask simple questions and he sleeps under them.

No one ever told me that the death angels of the past had no conscience!

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I have to ask. So, what is your nationality? Where (or when?) are you from?

It might help at least me to better understand you if I knew your answers to my questions.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100

America was regarded as impregnable to terrorism before Bush. This was repeatedly mentioned by many news reports under the nose of Deltaboy asking me if I slept during the history of this nation, until I can ask simple questions and he sleeps under them.


No you say that America was impregnable to terrorism before Bush. You have yet to make any discussion about the terrorist attacks in 1993 which I just mentioned few minutes ago. Please talk about this or otherwise I feel sorry for you.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
About the personal information you are requesting from me:

I wouldn't ask that if I can't answer the questions. I'd just state plainly that I don't know. If I have to ask such things when I can't answer, I would be very afraid by people who, in their liberties, believe there is a global conspiracy as our National Forefathers believed.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by tmac100

America was regarded as impregnable to terrorism before Bush. This was repeatedly mentioned by many news reports under the nose of Deltaboy asking me if I slept during the history of this nation, until I can ask simple questions and he sleeps under them.


No you say that America was impregnable to terrorism before Bush. You have yet to make any discussion about the terrorist attacks in 1993 which I just mentioned few minutes ago. Please talk about this or otherwise I feel sorry for you.


Especially when I can see plain questions.

It was repeatedly reported on multiple news broadcasts that America was regarded as impregnable to terrorism before Bush notwithstanding. But learn how to answer simple questions first before you discover this truth that was widely reported. That's the very reason why the word Terrorism was very much absent from the literature even my grandmother was accustomed to reading.

We will not dream because a despot demands that we must.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join