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.

 

Why had anti-terrorist measures failed after 9 long years?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by hinky
 


Easily the most disgusting, xenophobic, ignorant, and downright foolish post I have ever read on this site.

Congrats!


Not a problem. I'm here to help.

I noticed you didn't say I was wrong.....




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by hinky
 


Easily the most disgusting, xenophobic, ignorant, and downright foolish post I have ever read on this site.

Congrats!


Not a problem. I'm here to help.

I noticed you didn't say I was wrong.....


So you truly think there is even a shred of logic in the idea that "they want to kill us(which isnt true) so we need to kill them all first"?

Yeah, I'll say it: YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Just jumped in here - perhaps a lesson from history to the op.

Why have anti-terrorist laws failled - because terrorists adapt.

The Emergency Powers Act was put into place in 1972 in Northern Ireland. in 1985 I went to University in Derry in Northern Ireland.

In April 1986 2 policemen were blown to death 30 meters from me.

I make that 14 years and still no change - so I would suggest wrong question. Perhaps the question should be - what have we done to resolve the situation in which "terrorists" need to create their message?

In Northern Ireland I would suggest that the British Government had done little yet within 5 years all had changed.

Why? we had created a situation on both sides that encouraged discourse and engagement in the situation that would ultimately result in a disarming of the so called terrorists and a step down of military force against them.

Does that answer your question?

Oh and fwiw my degree from the University of Ulster is Peace and Conflict Studies BA(Hons) for which I was awarded a 2:2 (but then no ones perfect)



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Or stop viewing terrorism as the worst thing that can be done to use and remove the power from teh threat. There could be a terrorist attack on the level of 9/11 every single week and your chances of dying in it are 1:145,000 in a lifetime.

Am I sad about what happened? Of course. Should anyone have to die at the hands of a lunatic? Of course not. I am not being callous.


But to let the act have such a hold on us that we spend inordinate amounts of money, time and fear on it only empowers them, not us.

For instance:

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.


If we took the money we spend on the wars, homeland security, and anti-terrorism methods, and put it towards safer cars,we could probably save 30,000 lives a year.


According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006


Just because it wasn't done by a radicalist, doesn't make these victims any less terrorized.


According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006


now.org


In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner.1 That's an average of three women every day. Of all the women murdered in the U.S., about one-third were killed by an intimate partner.2




In 2007, approximately 5.8 million children were involved in an estimated 3.2 million child abuse reports and allegations.


childhelp.org



One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.



world hunger


So far, the tally of victims is roughly 6 million.

Lets put the energy into true causes.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Umm, maybe because under the new administration such policies were going to be abandoned and no more interrogations to get a step ahead of the planners of terrorism. Just a hunch....a real good hunch.


No not really it has absolutely nothing to do with any "new" administration!

Because the same real elite administration goes on....No matter who we vote for.

The answer to this question is quite obvious to the well informed.

We fund both sides! This is indisputable fact! And this has been the case with every war from WWII foreword. We created al-quida, created and funded the Taliban to the tune of billions of dollars. Our government gives them money directly as well as sells drugs moving troops in to protect poppy's.

We trained all the 911 terrorists to fly. We printed militant Muslim school books for their children!

The elite use the US as an puppet to accomplish their global agenda.

And no president or administration with the exception of Jefferson and Kennedy has had the balls to stand up to these despicable criminals!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by hinky
 


Easily the most disgusting, xenophobic, ignorant, and downright foolish post I have ever read on this site.

Congrats!



REALLY???? i guess you havn't read some of my posts.

i think some of my posts may not be the most disgusting, xenophobic, or ignorant.

But, i got the downright foolish almost mastered!

that's funny to me at least.

peace or peices,
john



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 


Islamic Jihad just so happens to use "terrorism" as one of its many (and primary) techniques to drive it's "holy wars".

What was it that Jay Leno said...

"Why is it that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim?"



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcell
reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 


Islamic Jihad just so happens to use "terrorism" as one of its many (and primary) techniques to drive it's "holy wars".

What was it that Jay Leno said...

"Why is it that not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim?"



Pretty easy to answer that one: It's because Muslims are the ones we label as terrorists. If asians were the enemy du-jour, we'd be under the impression that not all asians are terrorists, but most terrorists are asian. If it were Russians, then we would think it was all russian.

It's not an accident. You are conditioned to think this way.

Never hear about the americans who blow up hospitals and schools labeled as terrorists. They are soldiers. Why is that?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

So I'm conditioned to think that only "Muslims" are "terrorists"? You only wish I was that dumb!

You obviously didn't read what I posted before.

About 99% of "Jihadist Muslims" (meaning Muslims who take part of the "holy war" to convert the world to Islam by the sword) ".... use "terrorism" as one of its many (and primary) techniques....."

You must be talking about the 1% of "Jihadist Muslims" that are a nice people and really don't believe in the whole "Jihad" thing, which really wouldn't make them "Jihadist Muslims" now would it?

Notice the distinction of "Muslims" and "Jihadist Muslims"?


As a matter of fact. I have quite a few friends that are Muslim, many in the middle east who have actually dealt with real "terrorists".

I also know for a fact that not all terrorists are Muslim.

I'm glad you are educated enough to "think" that Americans who carry out terrorist acts deliberately on hospitals and schools are terrorists, but yet make the mistake to confuse them with soldiers. Seems to me you are the one that has been "conditioned", or is that "brainwashed"? You probably believe everything you read on the internet and watch on CNN or BBC. Or maybe we just have different sources and your actually right?

If what you speak of is actually called "collateral damage" instead of terrorism, then you must know that this term applies only to military operations, and it applies to every country that has a structured military (not guerrilla force) to include the United States. It's a sad fact, or hell, maybe I'm just making this # up and I don't know what I'm talking about. I've actually studied Islam in the middle east as part of my job, and it wasn't taught to us by Americans, or the military for that matter. Oddly enough it was actually taught to us by... wait... Muslims! Real life sized Muslims!

Every country, religion, culture, ect. has had some form of "terrorism" within itself. It has no specific demographic, it knows only "the cause", or the reason behind initiating acts intended to terrorize and frighten.

But I'm sure you already knew that, and I'm the ignorant one.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Why had anti-terrorist measures failed after 9 long years?

Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?


people are addicted to fear and hate.
fear + hate = terrorism



Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



Because forcing souls to abandon fear and hate while utilizing fear and hate to do it is terrorism.
fear + hate = terrorism



Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



because people are addicted to loving fear and loving hate.



Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



because love loves fear and love loves hate, it's what love does.




Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



because people are addicted to what they think is love.

while their actions and behaviors demonstrate their love.



Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



because action and behaviors are defined by our loves.
loves are defined by our intentions.
intentions are defined by our priorities.
priorities are defined by our loves.



Why had anti-terrorist measures failed?



because people are addicted to the ingredients of terrorism:
loving fear and loving hate.




We were led to believe that if we were willing to sacrifice our young and courageous sons and daughters to fight the war against terrorism, it will then no longer exist.


why are we following those who have led us here?

who are those who are leading if it is a democracy?
the majority of the people are leading.




What the hell are our world's best and brightest,


become the example you wish to see in others. if it doesn't work for you, don't expect others to follow you. where is our personal best and brightest? why, who am i to be responsible for quantifying anyones full potential? they don't want me to know them totally. so, they don't share.
often they hide behind avatars and false names. hard to tell who you are talking to here, so i base my opinion on their facts, and how they stand up after speculation.



What the hell is going on????


people are addicted to fear and hate, the ingredients of terrorism.



Why the social engineering to keep the masses in fear so that they would surrender their rights for security, when those provided security had NOT done their job right and complete years ago?


why do people surrender to social engineering, by means of terrorism?
they are addicted to fear and hate.
they, we, are addicted to fear, hate, and the terrorism that is born when those two mate.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join