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.
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?
Cap, you're so far out in the woods here, there just ain't no finding your way back into civilization.
CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.
Have fun with those paranoid delusions of yours, but please, stay out there in those scary woods. If you come back here, you'll only scare the children.
Ridicule and namecalling....
I guess that is to be expected... After all this is a conspiracy forum.
Have a nice day
Originally posted by nenothtu
Violating WHICH Constitutional provision?
It's not "murder". Murder is an unjustifiable homicide. Just because YOU are against it, doesn't make it objectively "unjustifiable". I'd reccommend taking it to a court somewhere, preferably one with jurisdiction, to decide on the matter of justifiability. Good luck with that.
I've heard this lame claim over and over again, and have asked the same question each time. I'll now ask it of you - who knows, you may be the one finally able to answer it!
What specific statute has been violated that would make this war "illegal"?
An added "bonus" question just for you, since you had a value-added phrase up there, is how does the conduct of this war invalidate the Geneva Conventions? I'm sure there are a few soldiers over there that would just LOVE to hear that they aren't bound by Geneva Conventions any more.
Of course, the enemy never HAS been bound by them, which seems a bit unfair.
How very presumptuous of you, to think you can determine motivation for another, sight unseen.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.
Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.
Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?
Cap, you're so far out in the woods here, there just ain't no finding your way back into civilization.
CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.
Have fun with those paranoid delusions of yours, but please, stay out there in those scary woods. If you come back here, you'll only scare the children.
Ridicule and namecalling....
I guess that is to be expected... After all this is a conspiracy forum.
Have a nice day
I note with satisfaction that you couldn't refute what I said on the matter, and that my refutation of your original premise therefore stands.
[edit on 2009/11/13 by nenothtu]
We did our best
To let ‘em know we care
For every last one of ‘em
That’s over there
Whether we belong over there, or not
They’re our boys and they belong over here
Somewhere
I hope they all come home
To stay
In peace
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Originally posted by nenothtu
Violating WHICH Constitutional provision?
Congress has not made a formal declaration of war through legislation. We do not acknowledge U.N. or other approval as we are Americans. Congress must approve it legally, no one else.
It's not "murder". Murder is an unjustifiable homicide. Just because YOU are against it, doesn't make it objectively "unjustifiable". I'd reccommend taking it to a court somewhere, preferably one with jurisdiction, to decide on the matter of justifiability. Good luck with that.
You can excuse the "it's not murder" thing all day long. You can't deny you are taking the life of another. Semantics can't help you there.
I've heard this lame claim over and over again, and have asked the same question each time. I'll now ask it of you - who knows, you may be the one finally able to answer it!
What specific statute has been violated that would make this war "illegal"?
A formal declaration of war has not been issued.
An added "bonus" question just for you, since you had a value-added phrase up there, is how does the conduct of this war invalidate the Geneva Conventions? I'm sure there are a few soldiers over there that would just LOVE to hear that they aren't bound by Geneva Conventions any more.
Of course, the enemy never HAS been bound by them, which seems a bit unfair.
See my first reply, secondary to that if Obama truly is not eligible to be President despite the fact the issue is being swept under the rug. Then in ADDITION to my first reply if war was declared it wouldn't be under the Geneva protections if he is ineligible to be President. It is YOUR responsibility as a soldier to demand proof positive your "supreme leader" is allowed to be President. I respect the soldiers refusing orders until this is cleared up.
And you're right the enemy typically isn't bound by them. Welcome to being the "supreme moral authority" of the world. We need to be bound by them. But the reality is there is no power greater than us to bind us to them.
How very presumptuous of you, to think you can determine motivation for another, sight unseen.
I'm not speaking to your reasons for being there personally. I'm speaking to the reason you were deployed there. Like it or not but people above your paygrade ar putting YOU into these situations for foreign interetes.
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
Originally posted by nenothtu
Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.
Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.
Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL
If you believe everything they serve you that is entirely up to you, but Bin Laden was supported by the U.S.
Taliban was as well, not only as Taliban, but earlier as the mujahedin.
Next I guess you are going to deny that Sadam got weapons and funding from the U.S.A.......
Jeez louise
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
What are you refuting?
Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
As to paramilitary CIA funded terrorist organisations, what about al-qaida/taliban? What about Bin Laden who was a CIA tactician(I say was because he has been dead for some time)? How about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, what about MK-Ultra? Experimentation on their own people by the U.S government, in the spirit of nazi-Germany perchance?
Originally posted by nenothtu
CIA funding of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Bin Laden a CIA tactician? Those I can speak to personally, and they are LIES, of the lowest order. Not even logical. Because of that, all the rest of your assertions are suspect.
Originally posted by nenothtu
I note with satisfaction that you couldn't refute what I said on the matter, and that my refutation of your original premise therefore stands.
Originally posted by nenothtu
...
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Originally posted by nenothtu
...
Long story short, approval to deploy troops is not a declaration of war. You should read up on "The Wars Powers Resolution".
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Obinhi
To be fair, they do have some merit, bin Ladin was a paid fighter against the russians when they invaded back in the 80's. the Taliban was also paid by the CIA, and Bin Laden did raise to a higher rank, as he was loaded with cash. The relationship with the CIA stopped after the USSR fell.
That's a big, fat, ponderous NEGATIVE on all of the above.
Bin Laden was NOT a "paid fighter", he came to Afghanistan with his own money - well, his share of his daddy's money. He actually REFUSED CIA assistance. Matter of fact, he wasn't much of ANY sort of "fighter", paid or not, against the Russians. He only went into combat one time that I'm aware of, just so he could say he did, and even then hung back and claimed to be "directing" the battle. Bin Laden never had any sort of "rank". He was just a rich guy who mostly did construction in Afghanistan, although he did that very well. Sucked as a fighter, though.
Taliban was NOT paid by the CIA, they didn't even exist when the CIA was there. The Taliban was not formed until after the Russians and the CIA had both left the theater. It was formed and fostered by Pakistani ISI in the early 90's, and didn't rise to prominence until the mid-90's. The objective of the ISI was to gain de-facto control of the Afghan Government, but the mujahideen had other ideas, and went to war against the Taliban too, since they were foreigners as much as the Russians were. The Taliban never controlled more than 60% of the country, and was at constant war with the mujahideen to maintain even that much.
Nope, they're barking up the wrong tree with that CIA-AQ connection. They need to study the timeline better. Seems they got that BS from Brzinski, which really makes me laugh that they fell for it. Has any one ever paid any attention to some of the OTHER stuff he's said? LOL
Originally posted by Obinhi
Dorry to drag this out, What are your sources on the whole 'Who was paid by who" thing? In this case a report by CNN and Wikipedia may not be the whole story. Having spoken and plaied cards with a few spooks down range I do think that I know a bit about what went down back then, even if I dont really know whats going on now...
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Ok, i'll bite...
I don't considder my self a hero, I have not been in combat nor have I done anything heroic, however I did freely volunteer for the Army and the Army lifestyle is not a very pleasant one, I work 0530 to 1730+ routinely, we have 4 days of physical training in a typical week, we run 3 of those days and one day we conduct muscle failure (working out till your muscles give out on you basically).
You get people in your face yelling at you because they had a bad day and all you can do is agree with them you are an idiot/POS/whatever...
ALL service members have made sacrefices, some have made the ultimate sacrifice, some have jumped on grenades to save their buddies, excuse me but they ARE heroes, all service members deserve respect for willingly put them selves in danger, the military is a dangerous job no matter if you are in garrison or in combat...
I highly suggest to do your time in the military, your mind will be changed.
Sometimes I may not be so proud to put on my uniform but I wear it for everyone that has worn it before me and I honor the ones that gave their lives for one of us on the battle field.
Please do not throw salt in our wounds, service members have it rough enough, show some respect.
I mean why sit around and think whether the war is unjust or not when you can enlist and voice your opinion and help? Everyone here that is complaining isn't or hasn't been enlisted in the Armed Forces Of America to voice there opinion and hasn't been in a soldiers shoes. Now don't take that statement out of proportion or the wrong way.
Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by jca2005
So here goes the you have no right to dissent or to complain until you have served argument. Not everyone is physically or mentally able to serve and some would rather serve their country or community in a way that doesn't risk their life or which doesn't involve killing enemy combatants and terrorists. Is that so wrong? Even a Janitor or a farmer is serving their country or community and they rarely get the same respect an enlisted man does.
Hey Transhumanist I do apologize to you and everyone else here. I did not mean it in that context. I just simply meant the ones who put the soldiers down that know very little about the Army and what they go through. Yes I made that decision that's on me.
I didn't mean that you don't have the right. I simply mean some civilians shouldn't complain about the military or the soldiers. And yes some people are just physically or mentally incapable and that's not their fault. This is a free country and everyone has the right to free speech. But they shouldn't have a right to put soldiers down.
And there is nothing wrong with being an MP. They do alot of infantry work overseas. They have it just as rough. Especially having to deal with idiots on and off post when they get in trouble.
"dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.
Originally posted by Obinhi
reply to post by nenothtu
I could point out some holes in almost everything here. However I wont, I dont have the time, and I dont think you would belive me anyway. I will have to leave this as you are wrong, but since I cannot prove you wrong in a way that will satisfy you, we'll just have to wait for the history channel special in 25 years.