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.

 

Judge Grants Asylum to Former Israeli Spy Accused of Being Terrorist Threat

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Debt creates revolution. And revolution destroys banks, traditionally.

Another self destructive system.




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


As a professional soldier, my job is to secure victory for my side of the conflict (regardless of what the motives for going to war are/were), but within the charter of your mission, according to law and with the least amount of damage to innocent civilians. Believe it or not, war is not a complete break down of law, it is a method of force. Also, believe it or not, both sides of almost every conflict, generally operate within international law and moral precedence. Take for instance the Nazis, who for the most part operated within their charter, which was based upon international law and moral right and wrongs. Of course, there were a few instances in which this didn't happen but that was the exception, not the rule.

War is not always a bad thing, IMO. Sometimes war is necessary, such as the case when war is actually defending your way of life. Most armed revolutions have their basis in good intentions, though war as of late seems to be based purely on profit, debt and control. Whatever the motives may be, they should not influence the job of a professional soldier. If a soldier's charter is to hunt for weapons catches for instance, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Believe it or not, there is a way to do it which impacts the rights of others as little as possible. How a fighter conducts his mission, is what determines whether he is a soldier, or armed thug.


You can't regulate war. You can pretend to be civil and professional, but when the crap hits the fan it exponentially dies with the intensity of the war.


You can regulate war, just as much as you can regulate anything else. If a soldier is trained properly, lead correctly and has a strong enough heart and mental ability, he will regulate himself. The mental strength of course is a direct result of training and leadership. While there is such a thing as "the fog of war", a professional soldier won't let that fog of war, be a fog of morals or a disrespect of innocent life. Again, this is what separates a professional soldier from an armed thug or even a scared amateur.


Making war pretty with this crap does nothing but make you lose and more people die.


War may not be pretty, but it is necessary. As long as one person arms himself and acts belligerent, there will be a need for others to arm themselves and sometimes act upon those arms. The sad truth of the matter, is that there will always be someone willing to arm themselves and take advantage of those who don't, which is where people like me and many like me, come in to play.


I in no way support such answers. I don't even support war. And I could not ever be forced into a war. I would hardly care for rules and professionalism. I'd run for whoever's side would keep me alive and stay under. And if they forced me to kill? I'd hunt down the ones forcing such a thing and show them why its wrong by example, if I had it in me.


That's just the thing. Often people can be given the choice to submit or fight. Are they then being forced into war? Would you consider such a scenario as being forced into war? I think it would say a lot for your character if you ignored all rules, including your own when being lead into war.

Lets say that an invading army comes into your town and clamps down on your liberties, maybe abuses your family. Would you fight? Would you run to whatever side would keep you alive, or would you fight for what's right, by your family, community and way of life? Would your hand no be forced? Then, if you were to fight for what you thought is right, would you abuse innocent people for your own safety? If you would, then you would define what it is to be an armed thug, not a professional soldier.

Professional soldiers do have responsibilities and in no way should they ever force the innocent for their own benefits. A soldier should be willing to die, rather than abusing others so they don't. Every soldier knows that there is a chance their life will be sacrificed so to abuse the rights of innocents is wholly uncalled for and not the actions of a soldier, rather that of an armed thug or scared amateur.

Many people who look at combat or soldiering from the outside-in, will never understand the responsibilities of such a profession and yes, their are many responsibilities in addition to defeating your enemies. It's how you perform your job that determines whether or not you are a soldier. Again, protecting the innocent is just as much of the job as is killing the enemy.


War happens because rules failed. Rules don't happen because wars do.


Not necessarily, but even so, that does not mean that you should stoop the level of those who disregard rules. There are certain natural laws, such as killing or oppressing innocent people, that every sane human being can understand. Many of these natural laws are pointed out through international law, regarding war. The job of a soldier is to operate within the confines of these laws, to include any additional rules set by their leaders. It is also the job of a soldier to refuse any order that is not bound by law.

For instance, if your commander orders you to shoot an innocent child, it is the responsibility of the soldier to refuse that order. If you carry out those illegal orders, you are not living up to your responsibility as a soldier.

Also, you have to work within the confines of your additional laws, set by your command. For instance, if your rules of engagement are to not fire unless fired upon, then it is your responsibility to live up those laws as well, even at the expense of your own life.

So, when you boil it down, there are many laws in war and it is the responsibility of each soldier to complete their mission within the confines of these laws, even at the expense of your own life. It's part of the reason why being a soldier is tough, to discern between what's right or wrong when the stuff hits the fan and to not cut corners, even when your own life depends on it.

I'm under no illusion that every soldier is capable of doing this, however I don't consider those who don't to be professional soldiers. They either can't, which means they lack the training, leadership and/or mental ability to do so, which would make them an amateur or they lack the respect of their profession, which would make them an armed thug.

A true soldier, will do his job within the law and within the charter of their mission, while someone who can't or won't, should not be considered as such.

This Israeli spy had the responsibility to do what's right, irregardless of what he was ordered to do. It's the responsibility of everyone. Be responsible for your own actions.

--airspoon


Edited to add: There is a huge difference between a soldier and someone who arms themself to fight an enemy. Not everyone who picks up a rifle is considered a soldier.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


The banks just refinance the debt. They don't go anywhere, nor are they destroyed. Where do you think the money to finance revolutions comes from?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


In the last 2000 years there have been bank "eras". Periods ruled by groups of bankers. But they always, and I mean always, fall. People can try to make connections between family, race, and other things, but it really matters not. Every single group of bankers that tried to rule failed. The French I cannot see as being financed by bankers, seeing as they killed anyone with money. That's probably why Europe went to war with Napoleon.

Revolutions don't make money. They make problems. It means you have to rebuild afterwards. Most revolutions against strong governments were not with "banker" approval. Case in point, Nazi Germany. And the amount of debt for that revolt against the systems of Europe cost far more than any gains.

reply to post by airspoon
 


I admire you for your ability to be in such a way, but it has been my experience and my observation that it simply is not true when real total wars occur. Every single major war in human history saw this breakdown. And nearly 10 years in, our wars in the middle east continue to show signs of this.

1 million civilians dies in Iraq for the war. I cannot believe that they were all accidents. Iraq is not pretty much over. I cannot see any different happening in Afghanistan.

I do see the need for war in times like WW2, but I also see many points it could have been avoided.

And yea you can try to regulate it and make rules. But 1 million civilians are still dead in Iraq. Not worth much.

I do have a stoic cool and I know I am good at war based on some fake experiences with paint ball against actual military folks. But I cannot say I would want to be part of it.

Again, I am happy soldiers like you exist. I thought they died out. So great. But honestly, are you sure you could stay your way when a 5 year old indoctrinated boy fires on you?

War sucks. And I will never truly support it anymore.

Maybe its that my first nightmares were of war in my youth, but that's just me.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
According to Israeli scholars ( who are about to be made into criminals according to a recently proposed law, for pointing stuff like this out)
Israel created Hamas...
So this must be part of the icing on the cake for a star player

I'd be watching who else leaves Israel that'll be a tell tale of what the next day will bring...



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
How could he pass a routine background check with his family members and past associations? I would think he would fail it.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


every terrorist group was created by the nation it is fighting. This is a fact of life. Most of them are former allies or buffer states gone airy.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Its almost like you are trying to derail this thread. Engaging tactic.

At any rate, war causes debt, financed by money lenders. Emerging nations, all nations in fact, must engage in commerce to survive. Commerce is financed by money lenders. Revolution/war removes political leadership, not financial. Besides, the banking system is international. You probably know all this.

But hey, let's talk about anything but Mr. Yousef, his political asylum in the US, and what his next assignment may be, shall we?


[edit on 12-7-2010 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Well you brought it up.

I suppose a better question is why was it brought up in the first place?

Whatever. I see you're point.

The man is a covert ops agent. I highly doubt we will hear anything about him for quite some time. He will be off in some unknown place killing or sabotaging some unknown target.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I don't think it will be an unknown place. I think it will be here in the US on our southern border. Possibly our northern border as well. Who knows, he may help us keep more terror cells from infiltrating the US.

I do understand airspoon's point, though. This is no professional soldier. His history is that of an armed thug. It is unfortunate our leadership feels we need him to ensure the integrity of our borders. If, indeed, that is the justification for the court's reversal of his deportation order. Bringing people like this into the mix puts us further down the long slippery slope to becoming no better than what we are fighting against. There may be no moral high ground left at this point, anyway.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
According to Israeli scholars ( who are about to be made into criminals according to a recently proposed law, for pointing stuff like this out)
Israel created Hamas...
So this must be part of the icing on the cake for a star player

I'd be watching who else leaves Israel that'll be a tell tale of what the next day will bring...


I think you may have misunderstood what those scholars were trying to convey. I don't think Israel created Hamas, as in the US creating the Mujahedeen, rather Hamas was created as a direct response to Israeli aggression.

In 1987, Hamas was created by several leaders of the Palestinian wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, during the First Intifada as a direct result of Israeli aggression and oppression in the Palestinian territories. So, without Israeli oppression, Hamas would have no charter and wouldn't exist. If Israel stopped their oppression tomorrow, Hamas as we know it, would cease to exist.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Dude, I have not seen a moral high ground since a year after Iraq. That is why I stopped counting morals as a factor of who's side I am on. Now I count the most civilized. In a world of barbarian versus civilized, I have to pick America because even though we are unofficially a police state with a bureaucracy of miserable failure, we still are the most free nation on Earth. That alone says volumes for how bad the world is, but as long as I can post this I consider America better.

Forget Israel though. I stopped caring about that conflict because that is barbarian versus barbarian. The Israelites are our Visigoths. We have to dump them. We may have civilized them somewhat, but they are not allies worth supporting anymore.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Again off-topic, but worth comment.

Israel is about to go through a major trial if I understand end times prophecy correctly. The signs of the times certainly point that way, too. The Israel that emerges will be ready to receive the Messiah at His second coming.

The thing that bothers me is the US doesn't play a part in end times prophecy as I understand it. Maybe that's why so many here believe in a pre-trib rapture. The alternative isn't very attractive. Our trials could be much worse than those visited on Israel.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

www.globalresearch.ca...

It looks to me from what I have read, that Israel had an active hand in creating Hamas so as to divide Arafat's base
The best way to control the opposition is to be the opposition.

I'll admit it may not have been too overt - that would have ruined the effort, but installing the opposition is a standard operating tactic.
"Puppet regime" is the usual descriptor...


Were The Palestinian Election Results Falsified In Favor Of Hamas?

Exit polls differ from actual election results too much to be statistically possible. The election results were apparently altered.

www.spiritoftruth.org...



[edit on 12-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Well I actually do find this quite on topic, but if you'd like to continue it on PMs, go ahead. I like your thinking, as I am also reading through scriptures too to see just what it says exactly.

Related to the case, this has to do with the fact that America is falling from its high point. She has lost the republic way of things.

The hiring of spies and agents for the border speaks volumes to the Hypocrisy of the government's unwillingness to say there is a problem, even though they send agents to do their dirty work.

Think about it. The government hides the problem and hires agents to destroy the problem. This is comparable to volumes of deception from the government.

I would enjoy continuing the off topic discussion in PMs though, as I do have a few interesting views on where America plays in it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I can't stand the deception. I personally believe that nothing true and right and lasting can be accomplished via subterfuge and deception.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join