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.

 

Man Attempts to Set Off Explosives on Plane

page: 32
24
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


First of all, there has never been a US president named George Bush, Sr.

Second of all, you are omitting the reason the US and the international community went to war in the Gulf in the early Nineties.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and wreaked major havoc on that nation.

To you, that might be a minor little detail, but that fact puts the matter into the proper perspective.

There may be truth to the assessment that the current war against the US and the free world by Islamic terrorists, but to gloss over the facts of the Gulf War indicates a lack of respect for the facts or just a basic lack of knowledge.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quickfix

Having a war on terror is like having a war on war. Completely and utterly pointless.



Reducing a real and complex problem to cliches is the main problem that you suffer from.

The war on terrorism is a name we have given to the ongoing threat posed by those who, mainly of Islamic beliefs, have waged a war on us.

Because not all Muslims are terrorists and in some cases have actually helped to thwart attacks on the US, we must find a term that fits the condition.

Of course, our new Homeland Security secretary has decided that we need even more vague euphemisms, but that's another problem altogether.

You and your ilk can try as you might to place the whole blame on the US for the war on terror or even deconstruct the reality to meaninglessness, but the fact remains that US citizens and other citizens of the free world are and have been for decades the targets of terroism by these sub-human dirtbags.

Now, we have organized a concerted effort to put an end to it, no matter how unlikely a complete victory might be.

The bottom line is that we are now committed to chasing these scum down and destroying them wherever they abide.

[edit on 2009/12/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Obama is in denial. The war on terror is still here.
Treating these terrorists as common criminals is stupid.
When a few United Airlines jets explode over Washington D.C.
Obama may or may not bring back the "war on terror".
I think Obama is brainwashed. Obama = Joke



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Never a President named George Bush Sr? Your kidding right? Is it because I left out the H.W.?

You know the George Dubya's daddy, George Bush Sr. the 41st President of the United States. Do I need to send you a photo?

Regardless of what you think, the war we are fighting in the Middle East is same war. We are over there fighting for the same reasons power and control. I wouldn't be surprised if you could connect every war that the US has fought to the crap that's going on over in the Middle East.

Don't be so critical of peoples posts, because I'm quite certain you have no "merit" to do so. Besides you're way off the mark from my point of view.

Thanks for the good laugh GradyPhilpott, I needed that.


~Zeus



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I used to get pat down and body scanned for raves.

I don't think I'd be very concerned that the same would be protocol for entering a plane.

Why am I supposed to find this scary. Annoying.

If a body scanner would sped up the process I'm fine.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 



The US has petroleum.

You guys and your rampant "its all about the oil!" schtick. You need to broaden your perspective quite a lot.

"The Oil!" is only an example of the actual underlying issue, which is trade routes and trade in general.

And if you are so fair minded that you'd like to have most of the trade routes of the planet being under the control of some Imams, Mullahs, Princes, and a Caliphate, you might be fair minded to the point of personal extinction.

You can be accepting as you like of cultural difference. That acceptance is a cultural value, and one that will disappear if you are so accepting of monopolization and barbarism as a cultural value that you are willing to trade away every possibility of protecting your own values.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
Detroit terror attack: Yemen is the true home of Al-Qaeda
www.telegraph.co.uk...

so if al-qaeda is in yemen, then there is no reason to be in afghanistan...


Yes, there is. However, we need to be moving out of the military arena and into a civil occupation. Afghanistan is the center of where they want to control their new empire from in that landmass. Denial of a empire cultural seat that sits in the middle of the Middle East, the Far East, The Russian Empire, and the EU is a desirable thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeus2573
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Never a President named George Bush Sr? Your kidding right? Is it because I left out the H.W.?

You know the George Dubya's daddy, George Bush Sr. the 41st President of the United States. Do I need to send you a photo?


You're easily amused.

Any educated person knows that there was never a George Bush, Sr. who served as president.

The occasional smart-alec uses that name, but it does nothing to enhance his image.

George Herbert Walker Bush was the 41st president of the United States.

His son, George Walker Bush was the 43rd president of the United States.

The terms senior and junior are used when father and son share the same name.

If you're going to try to be credible, you ought to try to be, well, credible.



[edit on 2009/12/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Your calling me a smart-alec. Your the one that smarted off to me, the only smart-alec around here is you. But it seems your too busy with your head in the sand or up you butt to realize that.

Quit relying on CNN for your information, and maybe you'll start to understand what's really going on.

You shouldn't spend so much time TRYING to be smart and correcting people's spelling and you just might see how truly ignorant that you are. But then again you have everything all figured out don't you Nancy Drew.( you wish)

~ Zeus


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Zeus2573]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Zeus2573]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


First of all, there has never been a US president named George Bush, Sr.

Second of all, you are omitting the reason the US and the international community went to war in the Gulf in the early Nineties.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and wreaked major havoc on that nation.

To you, that might be a minor little detail, but that fact puts the matter into the proper perspective.

There may be truth to the assessment that the current war against the US and the free world by Islamic terrorists, but to gloss over the facts of the Gulf War indicates a lack of respect for the facts or just a basic lack of knowledge.


The fact that there are 2 George Bush(es) in the same family indicates a JR. and a SR. You're already aware of what he is saying, WHY BE DIFFICULT? If you're playing the semantics game just to establish credibility, then it looks worse on your end for stooping to that level.

Iraq invaded Kuwait with OUR WEAPONS that we sold him. Go back and look at the IRAN CONTRA AFFAIRS. And, we didn't intervene against Iraq until they invaded an oil supply that we wanted (so you're right, KUWAIT.) He was killing thousands of his own people and murdering Iranians like they were ants in his backyard. WE WERE AWARE OF IT AND DID NOTHING. Again, it was not until Iraq was tampering with U.S. interests that we decided that we needed to attack Iraq to secure our oil supply in Kuwait. I WANT TO REITERATE...AFTER KNOWING WHO SADAAM WAS AND HIS PREVIOUS POLITICAL HISTORY, WE SOLD HIM WMD AND GAVE HIM BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS to do his bidding. We supported a WARLORD as we are currently doing now. So, who is more guilty? Iraq for playing the same game that we do, or US FOR GIVING HIM THE MEANS TO WAGE WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS?

The mere fact that we had intel on Sadaam and used it as propaganda to fuel reasons for attacking Iraq means that we ALREADY KNEW HE WAS MURDERING PEOPLE IN IRAQ AND IRAN far before we ever attacked him to secure our interests. So, with that in mind, don't you think its rather weird that we would label him a threat a couple of years AFTER we were already aware of the genocides??? Case in point, there are tons of great pictures of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Sadaam during the periods in which the genocides took place.

So, as you speak of facts and basic knowledge, don't let these facts be swept under the rug just because of your current view.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Quickfix
 


The US has petroleum.

You guys and your rampant "its all about the oil!" schtick. You need to broaden your perspective quite a lot.

"The Oil!" is only an example of the actual underlying issue, which is trade routes and trade in general.

And if you are so fair minded that you'd like to have most of the trade routes of the planet being under the control of some Imams, Mullahs, Princes, and a Caliphate, you might be fair minded to the point of personal extinction.

You can be accepting as you like of cultural difference. That acceptance is a cultural value, and one that will disappear if you are so accepting of monopolization and barbarism as a cultural value that you are willing to trade away every possibility of protecting your own values.



If you really want to get into energy, there is also windmills in Palm springs CA, nuclear power, and other alternative energy sources the U.S. may or may not use.

The trade routes in Iraq and Afghan aren't as useful as you may think and the poppy seeds may be the only other thing of value besides oil.

The oil is the main reason, check the caspian oil pipeline, along with setting up some permanent bases.

If the U.S. corporation is interested in trade, they will keep up with China, the biggest lender of funds, and would surely be the biggest collector if they decided to cash out.

My main point is, if you were in your country minding your own buisness and suddenly a foreign army shows up and a few thousand innocent people die, and maybe a relative, would you be upset?

I know I would, so maybe the U.S. Government should take a hint and leave the people in the middle of the freaking desert alone, there is a reason middle eastern people are Nomadic.

Edited for Spelling


[edit on 29-12-2009 by Quickfix]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry



Last question:
If you don't know this one, then you're more hopeless than I could have EVER imagined. Look at the background history between Afghanistan and Iraq. Study it...the only time those two countries even somewhat got along was during the IRANIAN REVOLUTION IN THE LATE 70'S. This is the very reason that I told you that unless you had a master's degree in middle eastern studies that you should BACK OFF.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]


I won't even bother with your nonsensical MSM and Colin Powell answers because it was so juvenile. Dimwits like you throw around the term "Mainstream Media," so often that I find t entertaining to ask you to identify them. So I guess your third grade level answer would suggest that you cal any media outlet owned by a "corporation," to be part of the main stream media. I could have gotten a more detailed answer from my 10 year old daughter but that's not exactly a surprise now, is it?

Your Colin Powell explanation was even funnier. Apparently only the MSM reported the remarks he made before the UNITED NATIONS and thus they are responsible for spreading misinformation.

Quite a leap there...even for you.

Now you claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan have been mortal enemies since the beginning of time. When asked to explain you offered that they only ever got along during the Iran Revolution. Even a simpleton would realize there is a significant difference between "mortal enemies," and not getting along. At least I think a simpleton would understand the difference.

Maybe we should ask a simpleton...

Nah...too easy.

Have a nice day and keep making excuses for murdering scum.



I don't need to make excuses for anything...aren't you the one here making excuses for the occupation that is destroying our country??? Oh wait...you'll tell me that YOU NEVER MADE THOSE CLAIMS. When our society all falls apart, I'll be sending you a
nice little U2U as a reminder of why our economy is gone, why people are killing each other for food, and why you're still thinking it was because of terrorists.

Oh yeah...I'm not surprised about your 10 year old daughter giving you an answer that is more acceptable to you. LOL. Because that's about the level of thought that you're displaying and cannot possibly breach. Telling you any information past your intellectual level will only confuse you.
I mean, weren't you the one ASKING ME WHO THE MSM WAS??? AHHHH that's good stuff. You've at least been worth a laugh.

My guess here is by your response, or, lack thereof...you still didn't read about the Iranian Revolution. Even Wikipedia could give you some baseline background information (and sources for you to cross reference) so that you're not just swinging in the dark by using little insults such as "simpleton" because you don't want to be proven wrong.
By the way, you're making your case look worse and worse each time that you post.

Oh, and you might want to listen to your 10 year old daughter because something tells me that she's far more informed than you.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
reply to post by Kailassa
 


My grandparrents fought against and hide jews.. Thats why I am so against same thing happening again which people aren't willing to see ..
I see those terrorist not as resistance but as enemy soldiers fighting for the radicle facist ideology called Islam .. The Netherlands is over run and rights are currently being given away to please Islam.. We have Jewish Christian and humanist
That isn't the way of the Dutch resistance fighers of WW2


What your grandparents did and what you are doing are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. My grandparents on my father's side were actually from England, moved to Iowa and were staunch racists with Nazi heritage and background. Guess what...my father ended up marrying a black woman, was disowned by his family and had me as a child. He's still married to my mother. Point being, what one generation does at a certain time in history may not be what the next is doing in the present day. So, just because your GRANDPARENTS were working for a better cause, does not mean that this is exactly what you are doing. AND,...Something tells me that if your grandparents did what you said that they did, they would be horrified with the current state of today's affairs and how history is beginning to repeat itself. By the way, Hitler used an act of terrorism in order to justify the rounding up and murdering of millions of Jews and other minorities. (The Reichstag fire) Just think about that when you're backing up dubious methods to destroy terrorism.

Hitler specifically stated that Jews were an "outside and foreign threat" which is the same way Bush referred to the "terrorists" as during his campaign to sell the war. As a matter of fact, you could call this a coincidence but, they practically gave the same speech when addressing the threat of terrorism to their respective countries. Here are those words...

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Adolf Hitler (when announcing the Gestapo to the people)


"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

George W. Bush

So, although I support your enthusiasm, you should really think about the implications of where all of this could take us. GITMO could very well=concentration camp. Holding enemies on foreign soil but not giving them POW status = loss of freedoms and human rights.








[edit on 29-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


OMG. Afghanistan is a semi-protected bunkered in area that can be used to run an empire, while being protected and in the middle of everything.

Between those points listed are boundaries that do not matter. They are political fifedoms that in no way indicate any real political boundaries and are mutable by the second. Between those are waterways that are of vast international importance.

Poppies and oil are only a permutation of what is there - the silk roads, both land and water, that have been the center piece of international trade for thousands of years. That a pipeline now goes under the ground over the same routes should be suggestive to you about the fact that these routes are still vitally important.


If you think that oil is only about energy, you seriously need to look around your house. Windmills aren't going to provide you with the one hundred and fifty little containers in your house. Or the food packaging you have. Or the computer you are sitting in front of. Or the other two thousand things in your house alone that require petroleum.

You can hate the petroleum industry all you like. But your morning coffee is more expensive. Nuclear power isn't going to provide any of that. A wind turbine will give you some energy, while sacrificing land, and killing bats. Everything has a cost.

[edit on 2009/12/29 by Aeons]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The middle east is nomadic? OMFG. I'm debating with someone who thinks that the cradle of civilization is populated by camel riding nomads.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
news.google.com...


President Obama warned Monday that the United States would respond aggressively to terrorism such as last week's botched attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner.


Obama vows to 'keep up the pressure' on terrorists

oh yes, lets open a "third" front in the war on terror and agrresively attack them, afterall my nobel PEACE prize was a complete and total sham!!


Agreed. Its too bad that they cycle just continues to spin relentlessly. Its perpetual, but, it will come to an end. Unfortunately, that ending looks very bleak on behalf of America in general. The economy WILL eventually collapse because of our inability to sustain a non-stop war, there will be a race for natural resources here, and no one will really know who to trust. I just wish we could save this place before it completely gets flushed. In the end, things will take their natural course.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by Venetian
Has the topic of Manchurian candidate came up regarding this guy? According to BBC World News, university staff and colleagues regard the suspect as "quiet, obedient" and a "perfect example of a good student" and so forth. Also, Nigeria claims "We do not think that there is any organised Islamic group in Nigeria that is inclined to such a criminal and violent act. We condemn such an extreme viewpoint and action."

I haven't read the previous 30 pages of posts, so apologies if this has been discussed already.

There are plenty of volunteers who sign up for the Islamic cause. Thousands in camps.
BBC has always been apologists.
The State Department looks like a bunch of idiots:
www.cbsnews.com...




[edit on 28-12-2009 by JJay55]


Darth Vader has returned. And soon shall the emperor. With a mentality such as this, we're all in for a world of hurt soon.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Did you hear his Nobel Prize acceptance speech?

It was very pro war.


They are already backing off of the Guantanamo closure, especially in regard to Yemeni detainees. Check the current developments yourself.

The times they are a changing.

Changing back!

Don't underestimate this President and his ability to do anything to divert attention away from his domestic agendas.

If one failed attack can gain this much attention, imagine what will happen when a successful attack happens and Al Qaeda conveniently claims responsibility... Or even better, if a terrorist plot and attack can be linked to Iran and Al Qaeda... whoa, a double whammy!

Yeah, something stinks alright, and it ain't the winds of change.







[edit on 28-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]


I'll have to agree with you. However, according to some of the posters on here, Al Qaeda has accepted responsibility for the attempt (at least, that's what the media is currently telling us)

It sounds just a little strange...doesn't it??



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
What if I'm right?



What if you and others who continually trivialize the terrorist threat are wrong?


Terrorists threats are never trivial, but, its important to know which side benefits the most from the "said" acts of terrorism. And imagine the side that is smart enough to manipulate both opposing factions into believing that there is a threat in either direction. If you ask me, the terrorists aren't gaining an incredible amount of benefits from their Jihad against America. But alternately, America continues to give and receive contracts and fund corporations such as Halliburton (Cheney) which is ran and operated by active political figures in our nation's defense. Doesn't that seem a little "STRANGE???" The worst aspect about this is that much of the money comes in from CHINA which puts the American People into consistent and considerable debt. If China wanted to, they could sell our stocks on the open market right now and completely destroy us as a world power. Not with military might, but with the economy we shall fall.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by JJay55
 


How would blowing up a plane on an approach to Detroit affect a prison 100 miles away?

Is the prison on the approach path?

One news report I heard today said that the device on some planes that tells passengers how far they are away from their destination had been disabled, so there may be some validity to your theory, but still that would seem to be a very long shot.

Certainly, blowing up a full airliner on an approach to a large city would produce very many casualties, but affecting a given facility would require much better tracking than a passenger could effect, it seems to me.

[edit on 2009/12/28 by GradyPhilpott]


I'm very glad that you saw the hole in JJAY's logic. Thank you for thinking critically which deserves a star. I know that you and I don't necessarily agree on this topic, but, I can tell that you're far more engaged in this than some of the others that are posting on this board who share your opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join