Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

President AND Congress Engage In High Treason

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Of course, bring our soldiers home. Whoever said to place them on our borders to protect us, yes! I am in agreement. Place them and patriot missiles facing outwards around our borders and lets tend to ourselves and fix this country.
As for oil, we are absolutely over there for oil and pipelines. That is the real reason. We probably want to get the nukes out of Pakistan, too.
As for not being able to drill here in America and importing our oil from other parts of the world, that's to drive oil prices up. They do it all the time. I remember around the time hurricane Katrina hit an oil tanker went down in the Mississippi (I believe I'm remembering that right). Gas prices rose over a $1 in NY within a week. One tanker and gas goes up. It's all a game. It's just what jtma 508 said, look at the diamond trade. They burn, vault and don't dig up diamonds to inflate the price. Who benefits? A few. Who loses out? The rest of us. Especially, the slave workers in Africa.
The world is one giant oligarchy.




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rhetoric
This is nothing new.



I find this to be the typical democrat response to accusations of high treason.

"Its nothing new"

Kind of like

"Its no big deal"

Then they produce an orwellian logicial arguement justifying the funding of people who were just out shooting at our service men.

Truly disturbing.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Rhetoric
This is nothing new.



I find this to be the typical democrat response to accusations of high treason.

"Its nothing new"

Kind of like

"Its no big deal"

Then they produce an orwellian logicial arguement justifying the funding of people who were just out shooting at our service men.

Truly disturbing.
[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]


I find nothing partisan or "Democrat" about it. It seems more like a fatalist comment to me. The idea that our government flaunts the checks and balances and acts in manners that are not in the best interest of the citizenship and are likely illegal... this idea is nothing new and has been going on for ages. For someone to point that out is simply acknowledging the fact that they aren't surprised and really don't expect anything to come out of it.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Rhetoric
This is nothing new.



I find this to be the typical democrat response to accusations of high treason.

"Its nothing new"

Kind of like

"Its no big deal"

Then they produce an orwellian logicial arguement justifying the funding of people who were just out shooting at our service men.

Truly disturbing.
[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]


I find nothing partisan or "Democrat" about it. It seems more like a fatalist comment to me. The idea that our government flaunts the checks and balances and acts in manners that are not in the best interest of the citizenship and are likely illegal... this idea is nothing new and has been going on for ages. For someone to point that out is simply acknowledging the fact that they aren't surprised and really don't expect anything to come out of it.


perhaps.

I find republicans to be less brazen about open support of our enemies though.

Not that I'm a fan of them either.

Bush should be hauled into court as well.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Rhetoric
This is nothing new.



I find this to be the typical democrat response to accusations of high treason.

"Its nothing new"

Kind of like

"Its no big deal"

Then they produce an orwellian logicial arguement justifying the funding of people who were just out shooting at our service men.

Truly disturbing.
[edit on 29-10-2009 by mnemeth1]


I find nothing partisan or "Democrat" about it. It seems more like a fatalist comment to me. The idea that our government flaunts the checks and balances and acts in manners that are not in the best interest of the citizenship and are likely illegal... this idea is nothing new and has been going on for ages. For someone to point that out is simply acknowledging the fact that they aren't surprised and really don't expect anything to come out of it.


perhaps.

I find republicans to be less brazen about open support of our enemies though.

Not that I'm a fan of them either.

Bush should be hauled into court as well.


Easy bub, you're looking to lash out at Democrats, and Democrats only, that much is clear by your statements and attacks on this administration and members of this board.

You're trying to pick a fight or something, and I find it, and your entire argument to be without any merit. Unless of course you accused Bush of High-Treason" when he started bribing Iraqi Tribal elders, but I can't seem to find the thread you started then, is it missing or is this attack of yours really not about Afghanistan at all?

You're too transparent.

I'm not defending anything or anyone in this thread, all I said is that "it's nothing new" Many presidents have done this in many parts of the world.

-Get over yourself, your hate is going to eat you up from the inside out.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rhetoric

Easy bub, you're looking to lash out at Democrats, and Democrats only, that much is clear by your statements and attacks on this administration and members of this board.

You're trying to pick a fight or something, and I find it, and your entire argument to be without any merit. Unless of course you accused Bush of High-Treason" when he started bribing Iraqi Tribal elders, but I can't seem to find the thread you started then, is it missing or is this attack of yours really not about Afghanistan at all?

You're too transparent.

I'm not defending anything or anyone in this thread, all I said is that "it's nothing new" Many presidents have done this in many parts of the world.

-Get over yourself, your hate is going to eat you up from the inside out.


Perhaps you don't see any of my anti-bush posts because I joined ATS on 3/2009, after Bush was removed from office.

And yes, I am lashing out at democrats right now. They are in power and are the ones passing legislation that openly transfers my money to enemy combatants.

To see people like yourself come in here and say "nothing new" to the open support of enemy combatants with US tax dollars is an outrage.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Oh, nice sig btw:

"Bush lied, Soldiers died."

I can see you care a lot about the troops who are getting attacked on a daily basis.

Your cavalier attitude toward the open funding of enemy combatants by our own government, while outrageous, is expected.

Anything the God King does is good while anything the evil Bu#ler did is evil, never mind that both of them are operating off of the same playbook. The Obama policies on Afghanistan and Iraq are IDENTICAL to the Bush policy.

In fact, Obama has INCREASED troop levels and authorized the bombing of Pakistani soil.

Orwell.

Look him up.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





originally posted by mnemeth1
I can see you care a lot about the troops who are getting attacked on a daily basis.


I was one of those troops, so don't pretend to know anything about what it's like over there.

It must be nice, to be able to sit on your couch while others do your fighting for you. I have no more time for your hatred and ignorance, go away.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rhetoric
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





originally posted by mnemeth1
I can see you care a lot about the troops who are getting attacked on a daily basis.


I was one of those troops, so don't pretend to know anything about what it's like over there.

It must be nice, to be able to sit on your couch while others do your fighting for you. I have no more time for your hatred and ignorance, go away.


So was I

I find it highly unlikely that a former serviceman would be so cavalier about funding enemy combatants with his own money.

[SNIP]

Mod Edit: Snipped T&C violation:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   



I'm going to break this down for you all.

In order for this "war" to end, the government has come to the conclusion that it must pay the Taliban to fight for us.

Why?

Because since the Taliban’s inception, they have been nothing but a mercenary force disguised as a militant religious group.

Let us not forget who created the Taliban. It was the US very own CIA that funded and trained the original group of warlords in a bid to prevent Russia from acquiring access to oil in Afghanistan. If you look at old pictures of the Taliban, they are all carrying US arms.

Now we are at war with an enemy of our own creation

I am a former US military gulf war veteran.


The Taliban (Students) were conceived by Pakistan to protect
trade routes from Pakistan to Central Asia. The Mujahedin, Warlords
and Taliban are 3 separate groups.

Warlords interestingly pose a greater threat than the Taliban. An
example would be opium. The Taliban curbed its distribution where-as
today Afghanistan is once again the world supplier of opium.
As you will know Warlords control opium and poppy fields, not the
Taliban who opposed poppy growth.

Most of the pictures i have looked at of the old or new Taliban show
them carrying AK-47,s, AK-74,s and on occasion even the Draganov.
Could you point me to photos of them carrying US weapons? Whilst i
have no doubt they own some, by way of theft, bought in Pakistan or
otherwise, id say there weapons of choice are AK,s or equivalent copies.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The NY Times reports on the CIAs relationship with the current regime

www.nytimes.com...

Karzai's brother is a drug pimp and warlord on the CIA dole.

While openly being an admitted product of the Paki ISI, what has not been fully publicized is the CIAs role in their creation.

The ISI is an offshoot of the CIA itself, we established the ISI, which then in turn established the Taliban with laundered US dollars and equipment.

Global Research did a nice write up on it here.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Its widely known that the taliban was using advanced american weaponry against the soviets during their invasion.

That, along with massive US funding.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

They are a US creation.


A simple google image search will turn up dozens of old taliban pictures carrying M16s and stingers around.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Does this mean that the US policy"



WE don't negotiate with terrorists


is no longer in force?

OR:

This is not considered negotiation.

OR:

The Taliban are not considered terrorists.




What am I missing here?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Rhetoric
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





originally posted by mnemeth1
I can see you care a lot about the troops who are getting attacked on a daily basis.


I was one of those troops, so don't pretend to know anything about what it's like over there.

It must be nice, to be able to sit on your couch while others do your fighting for you. I have no more time for your hatred and ignorance, go away.


So was I

I find it highly unlikely that a former serviceman would be so cavalier about funding enemy combatants with his own money.

[SNIP]

Mod Edit: Snipped T&C violation:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Gemwolf]


So, You were also in Afghanistan in the service? I find that hard to believe, want to know why?

Well, on your other site, labeled in your signature line as My Cosmology site", you say nothing about being in Afghanistan, or even in the Military.

You claim there:




About The Editor Michael Suede (nom de plume) has a degree and background in computer science from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and has worked as a software developer / engineer since 2001. His interest in cosmology began roughly in 2004 after discovering The Case Against The Big Bang by Eric Lerner. He found the data laid out by Lerner so compelling that it drove him to explore plasma cosmology and other alternative cosmologies in depth.



It doesn't add up Michael


Claiming to share the experiences of soldiers who are actually serving in combat, just to justify a political argument is pretty low, and I think it is a dis-service to those who have actually served in Afghanistan.




[edit on 29-10-2009 by Rhetoric]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Its called the GI Bill and College fund.

If you poked around my sites you'd see me comment on it in a few of my articles.

I was in the Gulf, not Afghanistan, however I certainly don't believe you were there.



Anyone saying its "nothing new" and being so cavalier that the US government is funding the very people that were trying to kill them was never in the service themselves.




[edit on 30-10-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your stories are Still not adding up Michael.

Speaking of Afghanistan,You said:




originally posted by mnemeth1

I can see you care a lot about the troops who are getting attacked on a daily basis.


Thats when I advised you:




originally posted by Rhetoric

I was one of those troops, so don't pretend to know anything about what it's like over there.


Then you replied:



originally posted by mnemeth1

So was I


So I find this on your other site, proving you didn't serve in Afghanistan:




About The Editor Michael Suede (nom de plume) has a degree and background in computer science from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and has worked as a software developer / engineer since 2001.


Now your story changes:




originally posted by mnemeth1

I was in the Gulf, not Afghanistan


Just admit that you weren't telling the truth Michael. Just admit that you said you served there just to bolster your political argument regarding this Afghanistan thread.

Personally, I really don't care, I was lucky enough to come home in one piece, but I do know a LOT of people and their families, who would not appreciate you doing such a dis-service to the people who have actually served in Afghanistan, and lost their lives and limbs doing so.

Just so you could try to add validity to your posting on a conspiracy forum?

You should be ashamed Michael.







[edit on 30-10-2009 by Rhetoric]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Buddy, I'm not the one who's lying here.

You are.

I was a BM3 aboard the USS Valley Forge CG50, home ported out of San Diego.

I joined the Navy at 18.

I was deployed to the Gulf at the end of 1997.

While in the Gulf we operated with a carrier battle group and acted as plane guard. We also were heavily involved in sanctions enforcement.

As a BM I was assigned to the boarding team. I have conducted dozens of boardings aboard hostile ships. In a prior deployment I was also heavily involved in counter narcotics in the Caribbean.

The deployment ended early 1998, shortly there after I got out of the service and went to college at UWM.

See, its possible to do both.



You on the other hand are completely full of crap and have probably never left the US.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But you were not in Afghanistan....... So you lied.

That's shameful dude, serving on board a ship during the gulf war, is far different from serving in Afghanistan, and "Getting attacked on a daily basis" like you said.

You really should apologize to every veteran of Afghanistan, past and present, for claiming to have shared their combat experience.

Just to further a political posting on a conspiracy web forum.......




[edit on 30-10-2009 by Rhetoric]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
No, I said in the very first post:

"I am a former US military gulf war veteran.”

See that big "GULF" in there?

When I said "I was there as well" - I meant deployed to the Middle East in a hostile zone. Whether it is Taliban insurgents our government is funding or smugglers and pirates is immaterial to me. Either one of them would kill a serviceman if they thought they could get away with it. Paying them is giving them aid and comfort, thereby engaging in high treason.

We can debate the finer points of my service all day, but it doesn’t change the fact our military and elected leaders are engaging in open high treason.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
For a pair of supposedly professional military people, you two don't half bicker.

If you displayed this kind of bickering with your compatriots in either service I'm suprised you reached any level of competence in the military at all.

Debate the topic and not each other, please.

If you can't do that, an organised and tactical withdrawl would seem to be in order.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





originally posted by mnemeth1
When I said "I was there as well" - I meant deployed to the Middle East in a hostile zone.


Sorry, my mistake, I thought you meant what you said, I didn't know that what you said meant something else.

Back on topic...

Listen, I've spent nearly 5 years on my life in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation, 3 as a member of the US military, 2 as a private contractor, and this my perspective gleaned from my personal experiences.

We can spend a few million dollars to bomb a village, maybe we kill a few members of the Taliban, maybe we don't.

But for every single person we do kill, every member of their family would now like to see harm come to our personnel. The sons, nephews, brothers, cousins and grand children are now receptive to the idea of taking a pot shot or planting an IED along the roads our personnel travel.

We have just successfully manufactured enemies, people who wish us harm by killing someone close to them, perhaps the person responsible for feeding that entire family.

On the other hand.......

We go into that same village, and hand out half of the money we would have spent on the armament to destroy that same village, to the village elders and heads of those families.

Maybe, just maybe, we have reduced the number of people who want to see our personnel harmed. We have fed them instead of killing them.

If a few thousand dollars placed in the right hands, can convince some of them, any of them to go get food instead of an ak-47 or some pe-4 explosives, then we have reduced the amount of enemies right then and there.

The tactic works, it worked in the Al-Anbar province in Iraq, it worked in Bosnia and it worked with the mountain tribes in Vietnam.

A few bucks in the right hands of the right tribal elders, to save a few American lives, and reduce the number of people who want to kill American personnel, treason or not, is a small price to pay.

I, and most of the people I served and worked with, would much rather be thanked for feeding a family, than cursed for killing their family.

Now that's just my opinion mike.






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join