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.

 

You Are A Terrorist

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I am dissapointed to see the "real quote" lacking the ender, "and lose both". Since it is quite true.

Surprised Benji missed that part!

All well, not like it matters now...HA!

(If you will excuse me, I must go back to being a terrorist.)




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
It is a sad day that the practice of the 1st Amendment is now deemed a act of " terrorism". Never did I think that this country would turn into a power coup? And now, one could only conclude that we are only along for the ride. The movie V for Vendetta never looked so real~



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


The following is a list of behaviors, actions or interests that the federal government, via centralized threat fusion centers that collate such information, considers to be potential signs of terrorism under the MIAC Report.
- Displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties
- Supporting Congressman Ron Paul
- Supporting former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin
- Supporting former Congressman Bob Barr
- Opposing the implementation of a North American Union
- Owning gold bullion
- Displaying historical U.S. flags
- Opposing abortion
- Talking about the documentary Zeitgeist


Basically anyone that disagrees with the system - now where have I heard that before?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I hate infowars that idiot Alex Jones always pushes this crap.

These are not actions of a terrorist.

The following are the real behaviors of a domestic terrorist...

-If you live in a isolated shack out in the woods sending out letter bombs to people.

-If your plan is to overthrow the United States Government by violent means, only to install a fascist government and you claim that it's to "Restore the Constitution".

-If you think that the Declaration of Independence is your personal licence to kill your fellow Americans.

-If you rent a Ryder truck loaded up with fertilizer explosive and take out half of a federal building.

Most of you don't qualify as a Domestic Terrorist, so, please, don't delude yourself.


edit on 12/21/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


The movie was pretty good, the graphic novel is better and far, far more frightening. This is beginning to happen now...the same things in England that prompted Alan Moore to write V for Vendetta are beginning to rear their ugly heads here. Alas poor America, I knew her well, Horatio.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The only way for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing~
Edmund Burke


That above quote never held as much truth until now. We are seeing our rights and liberties being stripped from us on a daily basis. I wonder if the juggernaut of the upper echelons of power can be stopped?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Well.. I think it doesn't say lose both because you give up the freedoms for exceptional safety.
Kinda like the thought you would be incredibly safe in a padded asylum room, but that doesn't mean you would want to be there.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


That movie will never be real, because people are too lazy. Every one I see is waiting for "V" when the whole point of his message was to do something.

Irony at its finest.

Like I said, it is too late now. They would not be taking these leaps and bounds (removing rights) if they were not sure of their foothold.

We have not been America for a very long time, probably long before either one of us was born.

We have just started to realize we are not America, kinda like finding out Santa isn't as real as professed.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


But you do lose both your freedom and your saftey.

Or are you saying that we are safer now with these new restrictions in place? (Patriot Act (etc)).

(I think we are less safe with those implemented)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Help me understand here.

You've "breaking news" that claims "You are a terrorist", but the source information links back to a document created in February of 2009 by a Missouri law enforcement department, describing typical characteristics of militia groups in the United States. If you bothered to read back to the original document, you'd see that "flying the American flag" or "supporting Ron Paul" is not claimed to make you a terrorist, it claims that flying the flag upside down is a characteristic of a militia member, and that many supported Ron Paul. This is akin to saying that my flying the Norwegian flag on Syttende Mai is indicative of the fact that I have Norwegian ancestors. It isn't a judgement, it's a categorization.

If you're not in a militia group, they're not even talking about you.

Do all militia members and groups present a potential problem for local law enforcement? Of course not. Do some? Well, they have in the past, and it seems likely that they may in the future, so it seems ridiculous that people would think that law enforcement being knowledgable, at least, in such matters represents some kind of conspiracy. In reality, it's nothing more than sensationalist nonsense, and almost two years out of date, at that.
edit on 21-12-2010 by adjensen because: Clarification



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


We would be if we gave up all of our freedoms and complied completely, the point is that we would be miserable too though. I mean they could take away our freedoms completely and make us get on plane in government issued pajamas after a cavity search and completely search our luggage and yeah there wouldn't really be any way a bomb or weapon could get it. We would be safe but have no freedom and be miserable



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Though you make a valid point, I think they are trying to suggest that anyone who speaks out about their rights, or has any knowledge about liberties etc., is know a labeled a terrorist or something of the like. I'm just hypothesizing though.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


You know this stuff actually started under Bush right? Don't forget the office of Total Information Awareness that he tried to get created.

This is about a usurption of control by the CIA and military industrial complex.

ETA:

From another Washington Post article:


"There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that - not just for the CIA, for the secretary of defense - is a challenge," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in an interview with The Post last week....



At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has gone from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. The budget of the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, doubled. Thirty-five FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces became 106. It was phenomenal growth that began almost as soon as the Sept. 11 attacks ended.

Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.

With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.


A Hidden World Growing Bigger
edit on 21-12-2010 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by adjensen
 


Though you make a valid point, I think they are trying to suggest that anyone who speaks out about their rights, or has any knowledge about liberties etc., is know a labeled a terrorist or something of the like. I'm just hypothesizing though.


No, that isn't what they are saying, at all. Find me any document, published by a reputable source, that says anyone who demonstrates that they know their rights is a terrorist. The source document for this article isn't one, because I've read it and it says nothing of the sort.

Choose an extremist group, doesn't matter if they are right wing (militias) or left wing (whacko environmentalists). There is nothing to say that any given member of such a group does things like shoot at law enforcement or wants to bomb buildings, but there is an increased chance that they might (as opposed to, say, a member of Toastmasters or the Republican party.) If they don't, well, there's no legal "guilt by association", so it's a non-issue.

My Dad was a cop in Minneapolis, and I understand some of the issues involved. When a cop pulls someone over, they are largely bereft of any knowledge of how this person is going to act. Drunk? Belligerent? Peaceful? At any given stop, an officer might be killed, or be forced to kill. Foreknowledge can help reduce those odds... if an officer sees signs that the person in a car might pose a problem, they can try to deal with it before trouble ensues.

Again, no one sees having a bumper sticker with an upside down flag on it meaning that the guy in the car has explosives or firearms, but an officer (if he's been educated) will know that the person they are going to encounter likely has a different attitude toward government and/or law enforcement, and can manage the situation appropriately (in the case of my Dad, he'd likely have chatted the guy up, not being a huge fan of government, either
)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


There doesn't have to be a document stating anything specifically that a persons actions are labeled. I think your biased in this conversation, you openly admit that your father was LEO, therefore your thoughts and views will based off emotion. By me identifying your relation with the cop for a dad, does that mean there has to be written documentation that my labeling of your opinion holds merit or not? No, it doesn't.
The old phrase " actions speak louder than words" would hold true in this debate. We see the 2nd Amendment under attack a constant basis, but do we see legal documentation on these attacks? Once again, NO.
So now your argument really doesn't have merit.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen


No, that isn't what they are saying, at all. Find me any document, published by a reputable source, that says anyone who demonstrates that they know their rights is a terrorist. The source document for this article isn't one, because I've read it and it says nothing of the sort.



How about the FBI's own brochure?






Now that the matter at hand is settled, anything else I can help you with?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Forgot about those! I remember seeing those doc's awhile back...from somewhere?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by adjensen


No, that isn't what they are saying, at all. Find me any document, published by a reputable source, that says anyone who demonstrates that they know their rights is a terrorist. The source document for this article isn't one, because I've read it and it says nothing of the sort.



Now that the matter at hand is settled, anything else I can help you with?


Once again, this document doesn't say that. It says "these are characteristics of certain groups" that the FBI views as being potentially terrorists, and none of the characteristics says "declaring knowledge of their rights."

I did already see it, of course, as it is part of the set of "source documents" cited in the article. Apparently no one else bothered to read the source documents, or you'd have realized this. Given the fact that it looks like it was created by a third grader with greeting card software, I'd question how "official" it is, anyway, and this guy, who is clearly not a fan of the FBI, claims that, upon calling the people listed on the flyer, found that it was never used, and had been created by one, now unknown, FBI agent.

Indicative of one person's thinking, perhaps, but hardly an official policy statement. Try again.
edit on 21-12-2010 by adjensen because: moved a comma



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


My point is being missed methinks.

You would be "safe" from the bomb, but in danger from the government.

Therfore, you would not be safe.

If you give up your liberties for a percieved saftey (and that is all it ever is) then you lose both your liberty and your saftey. (Since it wasn't a real threat to begin with, you were never in danger.)

This is always the case, I have never seen an exception.

Regardless, as I have said it doesn't really matter. My mindset is dead, people are all about compliance now. Alas, if I was only a greater man I could do great things. (Of course that is what everyone thinks, and nothing gets done. Which brings us back around to, it is already to late to do anything.)

Meh



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I think your biased in this conversation, you openly admit that your father was LEO, therefore your thoughts and views will based off emotion.


No, he's long since retired from law enforcement, and my point is one of insight, not sympathy. An educated cop is less likely to be harmed, or do harm. On a forum whose motto is "Deny Ignorance", are you saying that you want less informed police? And you don't see that as a biased perspective?

The source documents do not say "these are criminal activities". They say "these are characteristics of groups, some of whom have shown disdain or violence to police in the past, so beware." Not the same thing, and the OP claim that "You are a terrorist" because of the claims made in the original documents is ludicrous, regardless of what one's opinion of the police might be.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join