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.

 

Criminalizing Rights to Peaceably Assemble? Militia Now Viewed as "Gangs"

page: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by whiteboynolan
 


Do something about it, talk with all your friends, even the ones that made the mistake of voting Obama, get them straight and get them to vote against the sift tyranny of the democrat party.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hisshadow
If you saw some of these drunk hillbilly teapartyers n birthers on tv lately you'd see why we have to deem them gangs


That sentence is as poorly written as many of the signs those drunken hillbilly teapartiers carry.
Was it fear of hypocrisy that kept you from calling them racist too?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


edited: this is actually going to cause more argument and thread derailment

[edit on 27-4-2010 by piddles]


No it is not ...unless the drama people take over.



hisshadow,


If you saw some of these drunk hillbilly teapartyers n birthers on tv lately you'd see why we have to deem them gangs


Did you go to public school as well and never get over yourself or know any real history??

Do you have any idea of how many drunks gather at these big political party back slapping get togethers?? How many drunk brown nosers???
Translate that to say..gangs...cliques.
This has been going on since before Ancient Rome.

What are you possibly thinking here in your attempts at cheap censorship/labeling/stereotyping....just like GoreHoundLarry.

Some of us out here actually know some history.

One of the biggest drunks, womanizers and gang leaders out here was a man named Ted Kennedy. Before him it was a drunk named Lyndon Baines Johnson. What are you possibly thinking??



Kozmo,

Glad to see someone else knows some history. I salute you and thank you!!



blood0fheroes,

One of the problems that social engineers are running into in America is that on the whole...most Americans are not as left leaning as they would like to take for granted that we are.

It is become obvious that someone out here wants for us to follow a British, Continental, or Australian template of government.
Americans are not interested in this.

What has happened as events transpire..is that even those who voted on the left and for the Democrats are stopping and realizing ..that they did not vote for some of this. They had no idea. Some are beginning to speak out about it.
What is also happening is that some are realizing that even the Republicans have sold the nation short in this.

This is what the media and political apparatus do not want the public to know and the most vocal focus point for their fears and insecurities is the Tea Partiers and the militias.
It is obvious that on these two groups they must focus their attention for the preservation of the continued direction they seek to take the country ..towards a very UnAmerican Template.. a world template.

Americans are beginning to realize this as well.

What is also happening as a byproduct of this is that Americans are beginning to lose confidence in their news media. They are recognizing them as shills for the various political parties....while "appearing" to be for the public interest.
And I mean ..."all" the media.

The overall trend of the polling numbers ...of people watching the media are telling of this. It has been happening for awhile now ..no matter how they try to doctor the numbers...eventually one can see the trend.

23refugee,


Originally posted by hisshadow
If you saw some of these drunk hillbilly teapartyers n birthers on tv lately you'd see why we have to deem them gangs


That sentence is as poorly written as many of the signs those drunken hillbilly teapartiers carry.
Was it fear of hypocrisy that kept you from calling them racist too?


Well stated sir. Well stated. It is gratifying to see that I am not the only one to notice it. Well said.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom


[edit on 27-4-2010 by orangetom1999]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
it will be a sad sad day
if this passes

before u know it, I'm gonna have
to fill out a request to go take a cr@p
and then my toilet paper is limited
cuz I'm harming trees.

what a crock !!!

here's a hint big brother
u cannot micromanage
300 Million people


What you people fail to realize is that this is CORPORATE POLICY.

YOU are a corporate entity until you file a UCC-1 and claim you are not by reclaiming your strawman, thus taking YOU out of the corporate employ of the federal "U.S.".

Those who have filed to reclaim their strawman, which you do by nullifying your birth certificate, which TPTB created to make you a corporate fiction and property of the U.S. since your birth, these people are outside the jurisdiction of the corporate policy and these BS "laws" do not apply to us.

They are under the "color of law", they have no real affect on sovereign, flesh and blood, living souls. "Government" can not legislate the people. They can only deal with foreign commerce. It is a long explanation but worth the investigation. I will say no more here. Research it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Like the Amish and certain of the Mennonites.

I believe this is also the problem with the Illegal Aliens for which governments ..state, federal, and local do not want us to know...they have no corporate social security number. They must bring them into the system in order to control and regulate them. One way is to get them to take out drivers licenses.

Very interesting that you know this ..also about the colour of law..verses law.


Legal Fiction...fiction of law.

Positive laws and negative laws.

Admiralty Maritime Law enroaching on the land from the sea...called commercial law.

Good to see someone out here knows. So few out here have a clue.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


alright, they were needed to help establish this country. what about now? how are they relevant now? How have militias helped since the 1900s?

I fail to see the relevance of militias nowadays when they aren't even half as armed as the gov't they would seek to overthrow. It was different when everyone just had muskets and cannons.

Also do you acknowledge that militias have made their presence more well-known since Obama has been elected? Do you think it's feasible that a great deal of these people are band wagon jumpers, not dissimilar to the tea party members, rather than people who truly care?

edit: I also feel I should add that I am not ignorant of history, I kind of already understood the militia's importance like 200 years ago, and my initial question was more what they done recently.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by piddles]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
weird mistake of a post, sorry

[edit on 27-4-2010 by piddles]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I find absolutely everything you've been saying to be total BS. You say labeling, name calling, and stereotyping is a Leftist, Socialist action? Have you EVER turned on your tv or watched the news? Being petty is a universal thing, all political parties are guilty of it, the right in particular. The fact that you even describe name calling as socialist already discredits you considering what does that have to do with giving the gov't more power? Any idiot can call things they don't like "socialist", I see it everyday on fox news.

oh and the freedom to be indulgent is a freedom that you still have, along with all your other freedoms. Telling people they lost all their rights is a lie, considering you're still free to make your completely incorrect opinion and I'm still free to openly contradict you (though I don't have to, you contradict yourself).



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Actually, when I think about it, maybe it won't be so bad to be considered a gang. After all, look at all of the gangs in the major cities, and all of the alleged crimes that they commit. It seems like the police just leave them alone anyway. Being labeled a gang might be as good as saying "Don't mess with them, because they might just mess with you".



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999


Name calling and labeling is the bailiwick of left and socialist type thinkers.


Ok, so name calling is only done by leftists and socialists?

You mean....



Yeah you're right, the Right wingers are very mature individuals...


[edit on 27-4-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
They've been demonizing patriot groups for the past 2 years. Remember the SPLC's list of "Hate groups" and "Domestic terrorists"? Under the Patriot Act one could only be arrested for violating a standing law. This attempts to codify that even being in a militia is illegal.

The Brown Shirts aren't coming, they are already here - we call them "Progressives"!

I recently saw Address Unknown on Turner Classic Movies. One of the characters talks about the hope and change that has arisen with the National Socialist Party. It is a real good lesson about selling your soul for economic and political gain.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I tell any and every one I met, including Law, if a bill or law is passed that violates my constitutional rights given to me by God, I will not comply nor submit.

We have an unalienable right to peacefully assemble. No form of govt or law can say otherwise. If they do, they are guilty and therefore should be forcible removed and held until a trail by jury and then prison.

That simple.


When at a protest, they say its illegal, you stay. They try to arrest you, dont go. Arrest them. Its that simple. We have the numbers and they have a loudspeaker.

If law enforcement breaks the law, we have, by very definition of our system have a moral and leagl obligation to remove them from power at once.

We allow them to drive us out and therefore we have bills like this!


STAND UNITED AGAINST ANY FORM OF TYRANNY



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
sorry but that happened in the early 90's, more than 4 people in a group considered a gang, gives the police the right to detain.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by werk71
 





sorry but that happened in the early 90's, more than 4 people in a group considered a gang, gives the police the right to detain.

The United States has increasingly abused its power. In fact, one pervasive abuse is the use of the RICO Act to attack those people that are expressing their opinions on social issues.
There are dozens of major cases where the US government has overstepped its legal authority under the RICO Act. Even when the "accused" group is exonerated, it is at GREAT legal expense, as defending against the RICO Act indictment is complicated and extremely expensive.
I can cite many cases, but let me cite a well-known one:
judiciary.house.gov...



The Civil RICO Action Against PETA
The RICO suit levelled against PETA resulted from PETA's eight-month undercover investigation of the Huntingdon Life Sciences contract research laboratory. Our investigation revealed evidence of sickening cruelty to animals in tests conducted for leading makers of household products and pharmaceuticals. Workers routinely slammed monkeys into cages, suspended monkeys in mid-air while pumping test substances into their stomachs, and screamed and shook their fists in frightened monkeys' faces when they were strapped down for electrocardiograms. One technician stuffed a lotion bottle into a monkey's mouth as a "joke."

Upon completion of the investigation, PETA filed a 36-page complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and went public. We gave the USDA our investigator's videotape of the conditions and procedures at the lab. Because of the settlement, I cannot show you that videotape. Fortunately, it was widely disseminated before the lawsuit ensued. We turned over photographs of lab conditions. I cannot show you those photographs, but they too were distributed before the lawsuit was filed. But I can tell you that conditions were deplorable and the animals suffered greatly. One Huntingdon supervisor's internal memo, dated January 30, 1997, tells technicians to look at the injuries they caused the animals and adds: "Just think how YOU would feel to be put into a cage and physically abused?" One of the lab's customers to whom we submitted our investigation results immediately suspended all testing with Huntingdon and conducted its own investigation, saying: "The attitudes and behavior shown by lab technicians on the tape are unacceptable to us."

At approximately the same time as PETA's investigation, a British television station was conducting its own undercover investigation of Huntingdon's British parent company. Huntingdon's British employees were filmed punching a beagle dog in the face and simulating a sex act during test procedures. Members of Parliament and British citizens were outraged. Not only did the company not sue the television station, it fired two employees who plead guilty to charges of animal cruelty. It then scrambled to keep its business license by complying with sixteen stringent requirements under Home Office scrutiny. We find it ironic and distressing that a similar investigation of animal cruelty against the American subsidiary was met with an onerous RICO suit rather than immediate and sweeping corrective action.

Despite the compelling facts, the lawsuit threatened our ability to hold Huntingdon accountable for its actions. The suit was filed by the largest law firm in Boston, with 360 attorneys. It was 80 pages long and contained 20 separate counts. These included three RICO counts which alleged that PETA's earlier animal cruelty investigations dating back to 1989 constituted a pattern of racketeering activity, including mail and wire fraud, transportation of stolen property, and extortion through the creation of a climate of violence against Huntingdon and the other subjects of our investigations. Huntingdon sought damages and legal fees exceeding $10 million.

Early in the case, we were slapped with a gag order which precluded us from further disseminating our findings to the public, and which even prohibited us from cooperating with the USDA investigation of our own complaint, despite USDA requests for our cooperation. Therefore, from the outset of the lawsuit, we faced the dilemma of fighting vigorously at great expense and great risk to our financial security, or knuckling under to Huntingdon's strongarm tactics. We chose to fight at every turn during the ensuing six months of intense litigation.

Ultimately we were vindicated when, as a result of our complaint and its own subsequent investigation, the USDA charged Huntingdon with 23 counts of violating the Animal Welfare Act, including:

o failure to maintain a program of adequate veterinary care;

o failure to ensure that animals used in toxicology tests received pain killers and anesthesia during procedures that caused pain and distress;

o failure to notify a veterinarian when animals needed medical care;

o failure to explain why dogs used in painful procedures were not provided with any relief from pain; and

o failure to construct and maintain cages that protect animals from injury.

Even though we fought hard, did not back down and obtained a satisfactory result in the end, some of the realities of civil RICO actions against nonviolent social advocacy became all too apparent. First, opponents of advocacy groups are permitted to make sweeping allegations of criminal conduct "upon information and belief" with no evidence to support such charges. Second, those broad allegations may permit those plaintiffs to engage in a discovery "fishing expedition" into virtually every aspect of every prior investigation or advocacy campaign. And third, the cost to properly defend against such charges and discovery, and the risks inherent in any litigation create profound impediments to aggressive advocacy work which is so vital to social activism. Thus, the civil RICO plaintiffs are able to extort silence concerning or termination of aggressive activism and research into allegations of misconduct by manipulating and misusing civil RICO actions. The impact of these effects is increased as the size and financial resources of the targeted advocacy group decrease so that the smallest and often the most active groups are most seriously imperiled.



You may not like PETA, but even they have rights, and their rights were violated. This can happen to any group, including the "Tea Party" or militias or your Church.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by piddles
 


I think you are a bit slow on the uptake here. Don't quite recognize what is right in front of you in your zeal to overtake the moral ethical high ground by default.

Watch this..by you...


Have you EVER turned on your tv or watched the news? Being petty is a universal thing, all political parties are guilty of it, the right in particular.


Here is me in an earlier post..


What is also happening as a byproduct of this is that Americans are beginning to lose confidence in their news media. They are recognizing them as shills for the various political parties....while "appearing" to be for the public interest.
And I mean ..."all" the media.


and this...


oh and the freedom to be indulgent is a freedom that you still have, along with all your other freedoms.


The "freedom to be indulgent"??? That is something to boast about??? To think is great..a standard by which all greatness is measured??

The ability to be indulgent is because something else took place which caused or allowed it to happen. Thinking people know this. The ability to be indulgent is the fruit of something else which took place.
Being indulgent is greatness and freedom??? What are you guys thinking here??

There is a thing out here called cause and effect...you and Larry cannot seem to get past the effect. Wow!!!


I also feel I should add that I am not ignorant of history, I kind of already understood the militia's importance like 200 years ago, and my initial question was more what they done recently.


I can tell you one thing they do more than does a public education...they read the Constitution and teach it to others....far more than they do in pubic schools. They also network with others on Constitutional issues...intra and interstate. And that is something Militias seldom did 200 years ago when so few could even read...much less write.

Now this here..Piddles...


I find absolutely everything you've been saying to be total BS. You say labeling, name calling, and stereotyping is a Leftist, Socialist action? Have you EVER turned on your tv or watched the news? Being petty is a universal thing, all political parties are guilty of it, the right in particular. The fact that you even describe name calling as socialist already discredits you considering what does that have to do with giving the gov't more power? Any idiot can call things they don't like "socialist", I see it everyday on fox news.


Wow!! This is quite a rant..no problem. The emphasis on what I post in particular is the labeling as being part of a type of censorship...or control mechanism on those unaware of it. It is in fact heavily done by the left..and liberals and also the MSM in the very way it is done here...to sway emotional justification...over others as in justification for the moral ethical high ground when it is none of that.
It is the type of cheap censorship technique for which I particularly point out to the readers here. I don't expect you to understand it while you are attempting to defend a very left position. I do believe some of the readers out here will begin to see and recognize it when they watch the MSM and also Politicians who also use this labeling and stereotyping as a method to get over on others for power and control by default. To make themselves and their political party appear to be ethical and moral.
They will begin to recognize it for the cheap censorship and drama that it is.

I recognized it as not being leadership at all when a famous candidate when running for office stereotyped certain Americans as clinging to their religion, guns, and pickup trucks. I realized back then that this was not leadership material. It was however ...dividing material. Divide and conquer. This has turned out to be the case today...and many Americans are coming to realize this.


GoreHoundLarry,


Ok, so name calling is only done by leftists and socialists?

Yeah you're right, the Right wingers are very mature individuals...


So this justifies the cheap and tacky manner in which you "indulge " yourself in this name calling/labeling. It also justifies the manner in which the President of the United States "Indulges" in it and attempts to pass this off as leadership??? Even Maturity. Same thing with his cabinet. Some of us out here know the difference.
We are disappointed in both parties in this. I can tell you one fellow in whom I disapprove of this type of labeling ..this guy named Hannity. I use the remote controller when I see them on the air. Same thing with others.
Hannity and this guy Matthews are just like..they cut off their guests in order to get their talking points across. I prefer to hear their guests and make up my own mind. Hence I use the remote controller when I run across these two.

What you and piddles are doing out here is not leadership..nor is it teaching others. It is self justification....by labeling others. Very self indulgent ..just like much of politics today.

Thanks,
Orangetom






[edit on 28-4-2010 by orangetom1999]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by kozmo
 


alright, they were needed to help establish this country. what about now? how are they relevant now? How have militias helped since the 1900s?

I fail to see the relevance of militias nowadays when they aren't even half as armed as the gov't they would seek to overthrow. It was different when everyone just had muskets and cannons.

Also do you acknowledge that militias have made their presence more well-known since Obama has been elected? Do you think it's feasible that a great deal of these people are band wagon jumpers, not dissimilar to the tea party members, rather than people who truly care?

edit: I also feel I should add that I am not ignorant of history, I kind of already understood the militia's importance like 200 years ago, and my initial question was more what they done recently.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by piddles]


Wow, your post is filled with misnomers. Please allow me to address each of your points in order.

First, how are they relevant now? Well, without getting too far off topic, something happened to the United States of American in 1913 and was finalized in 1933... The US became a Corporation under UCC. The country went bankrupt, went under state of emergency, suspended the Constitution, implemented the Federal Reserve and Supreme Court directed all courts to begin adjudicating under Uniform Commercial Code and dispose of all previous rulings decided under Common Law. So, what exactly does all of that mean? It means that our government has been functioning under false pretenses for over 75 years! It also means that the military has been abrogating its responsibility to protect the COnstitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC! So, what makes the militia relevant today is that they are the LAST line of defense of the Constitution and likely the only group to restore the TRUE rule of law!

Next, how have they helped since the 1900s? Well, so far, they have managed to keep the government scared and thus, in line. So scared in fact, that they are now looking for ways to make them illegal. The government knows full well that an armed and organized populace pose a grave danger to their plans to implement a global government and surrender our sovereignty.

Regarding weaponry... the milita of the 1700s was LESS than HALF as well armed and trained as the British troops and we know what happened there. Secondly, with groups like Oath Keepers, there is NO guarantee that the military would turn their weapons en masse on American citizens. Finally, I believe that the Taliban is far less armed than the US Military and we can clearly see how well they are doing against a superior army. It is NOT weapons that win a battle, it is the will of the people fighting - their cause, if you will.

The militia has NOT made itself more well-known since OBama's election - the media has! The militia has always been there. What you are witnessing now is pure propaganda AGAINST the militia in the hope that the government can villianize them to the point of shaming anyone involved and turning public sentiment against them. For an example in world history, take a look at what Hitler accomplished when disarming the German citizenry and the propaganda that accompanied his progroms.

And NO... I believe that these ARE people who truly care!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 



The militia has NOT made itself more well-known since OBama's election - the media has! The militia has always been there. What you are witnessing now is pure propaganda AGAINST the militia in the hope that the government can villianize them to the point of shaming anyone involved and turning public sentiment against them. For an example in world history, take a look at what Hitler accomplished when disarming the German citizenry and the propaganda that accompanied his progroms.

And NO... I believe that these ARE people who truly care!


Exactly correct Kozmo, precisely. THe media has done this by shilling for their respective political parties.

One thing which is very alarming about this group in office is the divide and conquer tactics so prevalant among them. They are not uniters but dividers and destroyers. They seem to be creating chaos such that their new organization can be created..ordo ob chao.

The Militias have indeed been around for a long time. There has been a con job to claim that the militia is the National Guard.

It was always private peoples with their known how and arms banding together for thier common cause.

One thing is known about central government and the politics behind them. They are quickly become about the central government...not the people they claim to represent. This is historically demonstratable in any country.

I am glad to see some of the states finally catching on. I'd like to see more of them doing this.

Good post again Kozmo.

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I wonder if their true intent with this
bill is to distinguish between regulated
militia and a gang criminal element
like the bloods and crips.

I mean they might have a point
even if it is a very weak one.

I mean would you want the Crips
or Bloods to start recruiting
mass memberships just to
threaten citizens and commit
crimes of violence???

just a thought


Don't forget that a well regulated militia meant a well prepared or well trained militia. This is evident from its use in other contexts of the time. It does not mean state controlled. The original intent was to always have a militia ran and formed by the people.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 





Next, how have they helped since the 1900s? Well, so far, they have managed to keep the government scared and thus, in line. So scared in fact, that they are now looking for ways to make them illegal. The government knows full well that an armed and organized populace pose a grave danger to their plans to implement a global government and surrender our sovereignty.

That, good friend, is EXACTLY why we continue to need the militias!
Excellent point.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   



Regarding weaponry... the milita of the 1700s was LESS than HALF as well armed and trained as the British troops and we know what happened there. Secondly, with groups like Oath Keepers, there is NO guarantee that the military would turn their weapons en masse on American citizens. Finally, I believe that the Taliban is far less armed than the US Military and we can clearly see how well they are doing against a superior army. It is NOT weapons that win a battle, it is the will of the people fighting - their cause, if you will.


_____________________________________
This is a very different time to the 1700's. If the SHTF as you are expecting and the militia revolt, exactly how do you anticipate it will play out? First of all regarding weaponry, you may at most have an abundance of small arms fire, perhaps some medium sized mounted weaponry, grenades and homemade explosives. This will not get you very far I'm afraid.

Secondly what do you propose your tactics for armed struggle will involve? You do not have the capability to fight as a regular army, say perhaps you take the townhall or launch an assault upon an army base or government installation; using open warfare any militia made up of civilians will be crushed instantly, they just cannot compete against superior training, technology & firepower.

As for Oath Keepers and the military not opening fire on american citizens enmasse, they won't need to, just open fire on the militias who will be painted as homegrown terrorists, not hard to to do all things considered (you are armed). I'm sorry but that isn't a realistic option either.

Thirdly, you will need the overwhelming support of the American people for armed revolt, all across the nation support. Without it you are finished before you even start. This support is absolutely vital. Where will you obtain safehouses, arms dumps etc. More importantly you need them on your side so they don't alert the government to your base of operations and/or where you are. Trust me, they will be looking for you a** very hard.

Fourthly, you mention the Taliban and how well they are doing in Afghanistan. (btw instead of public support the Taliban use an easier option - FEAR) There is a key reason that you have failed to take into consideration. Terrain. Afghanistan has one of the most unforgiving terrains for fighting on this planet. One look through the history of armed conflict in the region will make that plain. What you are suggesting will take place on American soil, hometurf. Where the power your fighting has extensively mapped and trained here, has military installations across its land and has the advantage in every way. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq or even Vietnam before that. Again thats is a serious disadvantage.

We have a group here, you may have heard of them, the IRA.
They began as an armed militia. And without the advantage of terrain (NI) public support for armed struggle, not principles, thats different (which they had both here & abroad in abundance) and tactics which is textbook terrorism, they would NEVER have got anywhere near what they did achieve and what they settled for is not even their main aim!

So in closing you will need all of the above, plus you would need to operate in the same fashion as the IRA and Taliban. Terrorism, a guerilla war.

You will indeed be labelled homegrown Terrorists which in essence you will be and the military will indeed open fire upon you.

The idea that homegrown militias will be a savior is a pipe dream folks, they will get crushed immediately or resort to Terrorist tactics lose public support & get crushed.

Its a nicer romantic ideal, but take a step back and be realistic and pretty soon you will see it just nowhere near a viable option, let alone a winnable war!

My 2c and quite a long one but I thought I'd pipe up.

Thanks

Marker.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by marker3221]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by marker3221]



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join