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.

 

Executing civilians?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
You know, white house is powerful than people right? So when do u think they will be doing a civilian massacre? Or executing people for "Secret reasons" or for "undisclosed reasons"? Or abduct?




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


Whos to say they aren't? Extraordinary Rendition of international terror suspects takes place every day. Its more than likely that the occasional American citizen has been taken for a joyride under the guise of "terror suspect"

One could argue that 9/11 was exactly the civilian massacre you are asking about. Over 3000 civilians killed. Obviously this point is debatable, but there it is anyway.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Ah, yeah...probably

Well, if that is the case, then I believe I was leaning for the key question, which would be, "When again?"

So.....perhaps in 2012? Who knows...

On the other side, I was talking about in public - you know, you heard of police getting in every houses of boston to check for guns, right? That seriously was close to the civilian massacre, 'cause police could've been knocking down in every houses or apartments and fire upon them inside, then taking out bodies, you know, in public?

I know 9/11 was occured in public, but I mean by more open and on-going public by the home department, or u/s military, etc.? Like shooting people on roads / street ( i think that happened like that before - in the year of civil right movements, but i'm asking when )

What do you think? Sorry if i'm writing poorly, 'cause i'm tired enough

[edit on 4-12-2007 by TheoOne]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 




So.....perhaps in 2012? Who knows...


Why 2012? I hope you dont buy into that end of mayan calender crap. Because I have several calenders in my home that end on december 31 2007. Should I be worried. Or should I just go out and buy next years calender?



On the other side, I was talking about in public - you know, you heard of police getting in every houses of boston to check for guns, right? That seriously was close to the civilian massacre, 'cause police could've been knocking down in every houses or apartments and fire upon them inside, then taking out bodies, you know, in public?


Ok. You lost me. Here in Australia. If you are a registered gun owner, the Police have the right to enter your premises at any time for the purposes of making sure that weapons are stored safely and things like that. I personally dont own a gun, but have neighbours that do and I am glad that someone is making sure he isnt leaving them sitting around for some kid to grab and accidently hurt himself or worse.... ME.

The only way your example would have ended in a massacre is if the residents opened fire on the inspecting officers. In which case the "massacre" would have been justified.




I know 9/11 was occured in public, but I mean by more open and on-going public by the home department, or u/s military, etc.?


Can you give an example, because Im not following here. What can be more open and public than 9/11. Your asking for another one?

CT



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Why 2012? I hope you dont buy into that end of mayan calender crap. Because I have several calenders in my home that end on december 31 2007. Should I be worried. Or should I just go out and buy next years calender?


Just went for a guess, comrade. 'Cause 2012 is the most talked about year as it is obviously not the end of the world. And no you don't have to go out and buy next years caldendar, lol.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Ok. You lost me. Here in Australia. If you are a registered gun owner, the Police have the right to enter your premises at any time for the purposes of making sure that weapons are stored safely and things like that. I personally dont own a gun, but have neighbours that do and I am glad that someone is making sure he isnt leaving them sitting around for some kid to grab and accidently hurt himself or worse.... ME.


I agree, comrade. That's good enough. It's not just the guns though, it can be labeled for "undisclosed reasons" on the news.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
The only way your example would have ended in a massacre is if the residents opened fire on the inspecting officers. In which case the "massacre" would have been justified.


Well I believe action can be done even without residents opening fires on inspecting officers. Call me crazy, but it is what it is. It may happen one day.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Can you give an example, because Im not following here. What can be more open and public than 9/11. Your asking for another one?


Maybe. I'm talking about different than 9/11. The huge civilian massacre in future could be the white house dropping a nuke bomb on its own city or people and launch the attack on Iran. That would make the best excuse ever in the human political history, don't you think? But again, I could be all wrong. (Let's just hope it won't happen like that because perhaps political world is probably more corrupt than it probably already is?)

I don't know, man.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I think the main point that "Police Staters" continually gloss over is the fact that police officers are humans as well. Most of which have families. An attack on the citizens by the government would affect them just as it would the average joe.

This is why I cant see police going on rampages killling civilians on government orders.

I hope that makes sense.

CT

[edit on 4/12/2007 by Conspiracy Theorist]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
You can't see police going on rampages killing civilians on government orders?

Perhaps I can understand that you may be just too kind or too human. Perhaps fear is what makes you say that?

Well, I'll tell you. I could easily see police executing anyone without thinking anything. I mean, it is the police - who doesn't enjoy killing and torturing? Or even abusing? Welcome to Earth. Have you thought about clones? Perhaps you haven't seen enough?

It's not just the police though, I'm also talking about agents, military soldiers, etc. you know.

Time will tell I guess, I dunno.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I was just watching an episode of "Why They Run: Shots Fired" on MSNBC I think it was. This is a good example of the unchecked power wielded by police officers these days in the US.

The police went to pull over a car for a minor traffic infraction, but noticed that the car was registered to a "dangerous felon." It just so happened that the guy driving was not the registered owner. For some reason the police officer determined that there was a threat and that he was in imminent danger, so he fired on the car. At that point the driver decided he would not pull over and headed toward the freeway. For the next hour police pursued him, but the driver was not speeding or reckless. He was scared that police were going to shoot him, but didn't want anyone else to get hurt or even himself by driving stupidly.

He thought about what to do, and saw that he had plenty of gas in the car. He remembered that there was supposed to be some big party at the famed Capitol Records building in LA for an album release and that the press would be all over it. So he decided to go there, figuring the only chance he had was to surrender to police in front of the press.

After arriving there and surrendering to police without incident, he was charged with three crimes and sent to jail for six months.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 




Perhaps fear is what makes you say that?


Fear of what? Exactly? I dont live in the US. I have nothing to be afraid of?
I dont form opinions based on fear.



Well, I'll tell you. I could easily see police executing anyone without thinking anything. I mean, it is the police - who doesn't enjoy killing and torturing? Or even abusing?


Here is the common misconception. Your generalisations do nothing to support your argument.

You state that all police enjoy killing and torturing. On what do you base this.

In my line of work, I often work closely with police and while I agree they are not all good, most are more than happy to help the average citizen. As opposed to torture and abuse.



It's not just the police though, I'm also talking about agents, military soldiers, etc. you know.


If soldiers were going door to door then your entire population would be out in the streets opposing this. No matter what, they cant kill them all. A government ceases to be powerful when there is noone left to govern.

CT

An off topic question to the OP: Are you under 18 years of age? Your opinion of police reeks of adolesence.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   


Why 2012? I hope you dont buy into that end of mayan calender crap. Because I have several calenders in my home that end on december 31 2007. Should I be worried. Or should I just go out and buy next years calender?


That statement actually made me laugh out loud. I have never laugh out loud at ATS. Star for you.

I am sure they do it on a small scale already.
I think the problem, now, with a widespread massacre is the government would have to rely on people like me (National Guardsmen) to shoot the people. I am sure I would get in trouble for disobeying an order, but I would have a rifle, and who would they have come get me? My friends? Doubt that'll happen. We need a lot more conditioning. So for now, we are safe. I do get out in 5 yrs though.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I'll try to make it clearer. This thread is NOT directed to only police. Yes I agree there may be some good police and bad police, but I'm talking about in general, government giving orders and such. And they follow. They kill. They follow. And they get paid for it. You know? Like in Army.

Forget it, maybe it's just me then.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
hmmm.... I replied in the wrong forum.... sorry

[edit on 4-12-2007 by DINSTAAR]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The National Guard fired on civilians at Kent State for exercising their Constitutional rights. The Natrional Guard has fired indiscriminantly on civilians during riots, most recently the Rodney King riots in L.A. The police and military will continue to use deadly force against its own people.

Are you looking more for a timeframe when martial law might be declared in the U.S.?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 




That statement actually made me laugh out loud. I have never laugh out loud at ATS. Star for you.


Thank you. I try to make my posts as entertaining as possible.




think the problem, now, with a widespread massacre is the government would have to rely on people like me (National Guardsmen) to shoot the people. I am sure I would get in trouble for disobeying an order, but I would have a rifle, and who would they have come get me? My friends? Doubt that'll happen. We need a lot more conditioning. So for now, we are safe.


This is exactly the point I was trying to make. The government can give all the orders it wants, but it relies on men to carry it out. Men have consciences. Even the best trained soldier in the world would think before following an order to execute civilians.

CT



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I agree with your point that cops and soldiers are people to, but only to a point. If segments of the populatation were deemed a threat or designated an enemy, they would not view it as murdering civilians. There were many Germans who bought into the idea of ethnic cleansing as the result of propoganda. They really thought they were doing the right thing.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 




I agree with your point that cops and soldiers are people to, but only to a point. If segments of the populatation were deemed a threat or designated an enemy, they would not view it as murdering civilians


But they would have to be convinced of the threat. It would take more than some General pointing at a crowd of civilians and yelling "ENEMY."

Im sorry. I just cant see it happening the way the OP described.

CT



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


But they would have to be convinced of the threat. It would take more than some General pointing at a crowd of civilians and yelling "ENEMY."


I disagree that they would have to be "convinced." Soldiers are convinced to follow orders without question in basic training. Police not so much, but it does not take much for them to believe that there is a threat. Every cop plans on being the one to go home at the end of the night at all cost. There are plenty of cases where the police have shot civilians without legal grounds. Not even necessarily for anything along the lines of profit or being a crooked cop, just a bad call. As far as the troops go, I don't think any of the Guardsmen who fired on the students at Kent State had any opinion one way or the other necessarily. They were ordered to open fire.

Now I don't see indiscriminate killing of civilians in the immediate future, but it is a lot easier to designate individuals as dangerous threats than it ever has been before.

I fear that we may soon live in a time when poor people will be stripped of all rights because of their lack of faith in the system, and made direct targets. Then there is the criminal faction. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw in this lifetime a police right to shoot anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime. I never thought I'd see the day when the police would be able to search you indiscriminantly without a warrant or even specific probable cause.

I saw on MSNBC the other night the story of a guy who was being chased by police. They wanted to pull him over for something minor like a busted taillight. Then the cop found out that the car was registered to a "dangerous criminal" and fired on the vehicle. The guy took of in fear for his life. As it turns out, the driver was not even the registered owner. After an hour-long low-speed chase he surrendered in front of a huge crowd including the media, who had turned out for a big album release at Capitol Records in L.A. The guy was charged and spent six months in jail, basically for getting shot at by a cop!



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I see a lot of examples here that are cases of people making the wrong decision, mainly from panic or fear. People are not perfect, they make mistakes, and the more power you have, the more likely and the more vivid your mistakes are. I'm not saying it excuses their actions, or the tragedies that occurred were any less. But human error is something that shouldn't be underestimated.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
But human error is something that shouldn't be underestimated.


To err is human indeed. However, we have seen an increase in the number of circumstances in which the authorities may arbitrarily interven in our personal lives thereby increasing the risk of error. More laws, more police power will only increase the number of tragic mistakes. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of abuse of power.

Let me quote from my own post on another thread, referring to subway bag searches and "Big Brother" in general:

"I have nothing to hide" hold no water with me. You might not have nothing to hide now, but as the laws become more crushing, you will find that you are indeed hiding.

When they implemented the no-warrant bag searches in NYC subways, a close friend of mine was all for it. She still is. It makes her "feel safer" and she "has nothing to hide."

Random bag searches are useless against preventing a terrorist attack. The real purpose is simply to further degrade the legal threshold of probable cause once again. This will continue.

Such priveledge by the authorities to pry into my personal life is made with the presumption that they are acting in the interests of the public without nefarious aims. Does anyone really trust the government as a whole? I think not judging by the approval rating of Congress. Furthermore, it assumes that there is no corruption among officials who could use these powers for personal gain. Trust me, there are plenty of crooked cops out there.

Aside from all of that, here are a few mundane examples of how this new law might affect the average person.

Let's suppose that you are a human being with an interest in sex. A man with a booby-mag in his brief case, or maybe a woman who carries a bit of mechanical pleasure in her purse. There you are with a person you have met for business purposes, and you have to travel with them by subway. Let's say to look at or to show an apartment for rent. The next thing you know, your dirty little secret is exposed by a chuckling officer of the law, simply because they saw you.

Even more mundane. You're in town to do some holiday shopping with your significant other. You buy the other a very nice gift, and plan to take the subway back to Grand Central or Penn. The nect thing you know, a cop is emptying your bags and your expensive surprise is revealed right there on the subway platform. Happy Holidays!

Here is a link to the original thread titled Be careful about where you work.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
i think they would prefer to execute via controlled disease "outbreaks" and quarantines, and false flag terrorist attacks. i mean, terrorist attacks would be the best way to kill off the population. On one hand, you get rid of the people in the area attacked, plus all the people you draft into he military to go fight someone else because of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join