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.

 

A Question To All Anti-NWO'ers

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


They don't want to.

They're afraid they're going to have to fight each other.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Spock (not to be trite, but it works here doesn't it)



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Urgh....

The question you pose is quite disturbing and the answer your friend gave even more. No one should consider an act of terrorism.


But this country was built on a revolt, a "terrioist" act. We built this country by breaking the law and going against the way things were.

Of course, now it's no better then the people we revolted against.


As for the question, it is terrible.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The choices, as you have laid them out, are just the surface choices. There are deeper considerations beyond just that 1 innocent baby.

Let's assume that by terminating the leaders of the NWO, Bilderbergers, etc., you would save, say 100,000 innocent children from being killed by their evil plans. Then the choice isn't between killing 1 innocent baby or none. The choice is between killing 1 innocent baby or killing 100,000 babies.

If you choose to save the life of that 1 baby, you would then be indirectly allowing the murder of 100,000 babies.

Suddenly the choice becomes clear. This is only assuming, of course, that those NWO people are planning on killing 100,000 babies. But this is where it gets interesting.

What if those NWO people were causing the deaths of 100,000 children in order to save the lives of 1 million children?

Then, the choice for YOU would be, do I kill the 1 baby which saves the life of 100,000 children, but ends up killing 1 million children? Or do I allow those 100,000 children to be killed by the NWO so that 1 million children can live?

Every action has consequences. The simple man and the "important" man both think they know the consequences of their actions, but often they only see a few moves ahead. Your heart could be in the right place, but ignorance often proves to be the folly of the righteous.

Take Bush for instance. If we were to believe him, that his goal of the Iraq War was to "spread freedom and democracy", then his ignorance of the TRUE consequences of war lead to his folly. The war has resulted in hatred of America the world over, and the deaths of thousands of children from various Iraqi conflicts since America began the Occupation.

Point is, you may think the choices are simple, but they never are.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Yes. Yes, I would. I would press the button, killing all those NWO dogs, and that single child. But I would hope and wish I was punished afterwards for the death of that child. And I'd accept the effects of pushing that button, i.e., being that I would be just as evil as the New World Order dogs. Strange logic? Sure. But killing ain't rational.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alkhemist

Originally posted by brotherhood89
in reflection to my last post, I really couldnt kill an innocent child
but i just want all the bad things that those illuminati/NWO people have done to others, done to them


I used to feel the same way: If someone broke into my house one night and killed my spouse, I believed I should/could easily blow that person away (assuming I got to a gun first, etc.). As time went on, I realized a very important truth. There is no difference between revenge and the original murder except that with "revenge" we tell ourselves that we are somehow "better" than the criminal. Same goes for capital punishment.

This isn't implying that I would be above having those feelings of murderous rage if someone hurt a member of my family. Of course, I would! But the reality is that killing someone to "prove" that killing is wrong, or even killing because we feel justified, is still killing. It does absolutely nothing for anyone.

As a species, we're extremely violent, and this is exactly what we need to evolve out of if we have any hope of making it through the next 50-100 years. Yes, there are still people doing horrible things to others (Bush, Cheney, etc.), but we only perpetuate the problem by playing on the same level.

Extremes, by definition, cannot exist without their opposite.

*We have to learn not to fall asleep every time we experience a strong emotion!*

Even a positive emotion like Love is a wonderful thing, but love without wisdom is useless.


Turning the other cheek merely results in a second slap. That is the reality of the modern world.

In answer to the original question: Possibly. Depends on the circumstances, and who are in the building at that time, the intel and evidence available etc. The life of one innocent child lost, while regrettable, is still preferable to the loss of more than one.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join