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.

 

Officer won't sign order for troop pro-homosexual indoctrination

page: 19
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
I don't think the troops need a lot of grab assing going on.

When I was in the service we did not have to worry about gays bugging us.

Its not good.

We need people that will kill the enemy, not check out their butts.


Yep.
I have to agree here. The military is the military, not a barbie doll contest.
Were talking of equal rights and that is good.
But some people live in a dream world. Why is nearly the entire armies in the world made up by males?
Why are the males on the front line?
Think about it hard people.
Why are not women on the front line?
Why should this kind of homosexual indoctrination not be allowed in the military?
Simple.
Do the math.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Is this Kay Griggs still alive? I'm stunned by her shocking revelations. Makes one think just who is running things, I'm thinking of maybe the whole lot of them should be thrown out of power and install John Boy Walton as the next president.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 

I think she still is alive. Let's elect Ron Paul instead of John Boy Walton. Luciferians and "goody two shoes" are not the only choices in politics.

The Griggs interview is very, very important. I first heard it a year and a half or so ago. I'm not sure when the inteview was recorded. People into the conspiracy oriented appreciaton of US politics and foreign policy should listen very carefully to everything she says, because she drops little gems throughout the interview.

Yes she rambles at times and loses her train of thought from time to time and it is a long interview of uneven quality, but she lets out some real bombshells. Just the things she says about judges in the US court system shed an interesting sidelight for people questioning why it is so hard to get traction on various important conspiracy related legal questions in the US.

Her interview makes one think about why there is a move to bring gays completely out into the open in the military. Is it because the Obama administration is more compassionate or is it because it will make it harder to stigmatize and blackmail people "groomed" for special ops careers. Or is it to protect higher ups in danger of being outed as homosexuals and forced out of power in the military by people with incriminating evidence against them.


edit on 29-12-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
I don't think the troops need a lot of grab assing going on.

When I was in the service we did not have to worry about gays bugging us.

Its not good.

We need people that will kill the enemy, not check out their butts.


Oh... come on man... seriously? So lets just say forget it and ban women from the military, because men check out their butts all the time. Furthermore, women are always speaking of how beautiful other women are... so there's more of a reason not to allow women in. Some people need to think before opening their mouths... especially when they make ignorant comments like this.

Now back to the complete topic... this Lt. Col. should loose rank and pay more than just being relieved from command of his duties. This is fostering the mentality that because someone in the military doesn't like another that they should not be a fellow wingman (from an Air Force perspective). Everyone in the military needs to see the next person as their friend at least! it builds comradery and teamwork. When you're out there fighting our enemy, you aren't just concerned about yourself... but also those who fight with you. If my wingman is in trouble, I need to help, just the same way that I would expect to be helped if I were in trouble. That's the only way to stand strong! This this mentality that he has, people can continue to hold on to something similar to "don't help him, he's gay". Furthermore... without him being repremanded for his actions, it shows his followers that because someone doesn't want to deal with something than you don't have to. Just step down or out and it's ok. Well... sorry, but you signed a contract, and are expected to be held to following the orders of our CINC to support our Constitution. Religion has not play!

Suprised that he hasn't not accepted one of his former soldiers because they are Muslim, or other than whatever religion he is.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by barkingdogamato
reply to post by Montana
 

Yep, Nam and the units raving, ranting, you believers are idiots, atheist when the mortars started dropping on top, was heard screaming at top volume " Jesus Christ why didn't I dig this (foxhole) deeper"

Per the ole WW2 quote "there are no atheist's in foxholes."


Then he wasn't an Atheist.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Annee
 

You know, the last time I checked, willful stupidity was not a virtue.

Black blood? I don't give a tinker's damn about a man's color, his ethnicity, his religion, nor his address. I only cared that they would stick when the going got downright hopeless.

I think for you to equate the blood of a black man with the blood of a gay that may be of a blood-plague is stretching things quite a bit;.

You want to wallow in that gay blood - you knock yourself out.

Not me.

I don't want to be near them in combat. I would not touch their wounds, and even though I intellectually know there is no risk, I'd shoot one if I caught him drinking out of my canteen.

It's a basic health risk.

I don't want any bodily fluids anywhere near me, no sneezing, no coughing, and sure as hell, no blood.


You need a reality check... seriously. I bet if you were around fighting when blacks were first allowed in the military you'd be saying the same exact words. Why... because you are ignorant to the facts. Probably been some rumor that Polio started from black people and "WHAT?.. I no wont no black blood in me!".



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Think about medics though. Imagine for people are shot in a firefight, three straight, one gay. Now in an ideal situation, they would assess each, and treat who was in the worst shape. Toss in the scenario the gay guy was open gay, and the medics knew it, and have heard many times gay people are more likely to have HIV than straight. Guess who will be looked at last?


What if the medic is gay?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
As I've stated before, I don't think anyone really cares if there are gays in the military, I was in the military and we had some obvious gays, but no one cared. I think the negative of this new official law to serve openly, will cause more disturbance, because it will segregate gays into a special and protected class, and now the idea of having special classes to address gays, etc, will only put the gay issue into people's faces and make them notice where before, no one cared.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The interview was approx 3 years ago I think. I listened to the lot....just when I thought Dr Shirley Moore's interview dropped afew bombshells but Kay Griggs....WOW, boy did she drop some gems. It was within the first 5 mins of her interview I wondered if she was still alive and thought the interview was 3 years ago and wondered if she's still around.

As for your questions; not easy to answer but I'll need time to think those over. Obviously Bill Clinton would'nt have any part of this gay nonsence so "they" send Monika Lewinsky in in order for them to have some goodies on Billy Boy. Makes one wonder what they did to Obama....mind rattles. The powers above are sick and twisted perverted nut cases, how the hell did they get to have so much bloody power? Blackmail pays, obviously.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pr3l33t

Originally posted by boondock-saint
your ideology is naturally incorrect.
If every man in the world turned gay
tomorrow. How many babies would be
born after 9 months from now?

ZERO !!!!


Ever heard of artificial insemination?


There is nothing wrong with the reproduction organs of gays.

Many gays have fathered or birthed children from the beginning of time - - with the opposite sex.

However - consider the guilt and psychological damage if you as a straight - - lived in a society where it was unacceptable to be with the opposite sex - - to fit into society you had to mate with same sex.

As society becomes more accepting - - gays can adopt or use AI to have a child. As do straight couples who are unable to conceive.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
As I've stated before, I don't think anyone really cares if there are gays in the military, I was in the military and we had some obvious gays, but no one cared. I think the negative of this new official law to serve openly, will cause more disturbance, because it will segregate gays into a special and protected class, and now the idea of having special classes to address gays, etc, will only put the gay issue into people's faces and make them notice where before, no one cared.


No one cared? I am sure the gays cared. And why shouldn't a minority be protected from potential bullying and the trampling of their rights (one that has been going on for a while now)?

I can't believe we're about to cross over to 2011 and one STILL has to be white, male, straight and Christian to get some basic respect as a human being in the US.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TKDRL
Think about medics though. Imagine for people are shot in a firefight, three straight, one gay. Now in an ideal situation, they would assess each, and treat who was in the worst shape. Toss in the scenario the gay guy was open gay, and the medics knew it, and have heard many times gay people are more likely to have HIV than straight. Guess who will be looked at last?


What if the medic is gay?



Are you suggesting that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first? If not, what is your point of asking such a question?
edit on 29-12-2010 by CayceFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Gays are human beings and not above sexually harassing a straight man any less than a straight man might harass a female. I recently had to fire a gay employee who kept sending sexually explicit emails to a straight employee even after being warned that it was a violation of company policy. He made is clear that he had a strong romantic attraction to the straight employee and this caused a huge problem in the department I am responsible for. He made numerous statements that the straight employee should just admit that he was gay.

Due to the nature of the problem our company felt it necessary to involve a lawyer to represent the companies interests and make sure that we were not opening ourselves to any lawsuits accusing us of sexual discrimination.
As a result the problem persisted much longer than I would have allowed and the straight employee had to endure several weeks of continued harassment until the lawyers determined that we were clear to fire the gay employee.

To assume that some gays in the military will not sexually harass their fellow soldiers is extremely naive. I pity the ribbing some straight soldiers will have to endure when they become the object of affection by some openly gay soldier who may feel protected by the military's new policy. This is a bad policy in my opinion. I think it is just a matter of time before this issue blows up and causes massive unrest in the military.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


This is the problem I have with many gays; yes true many marry and have kids with women....without the women having any knowledge of their husband's gay tendancies. This is devious and just blatantly plain dishonesty. Have you ever spoken to an ex wife and mother of a "gay" husband who fathered her children? What these gay men to do their families, to the women, to the children? It's damaging in ways you can't fathom nor begin to understand. Now I learn we have more in power than I ever realised including those all the way up the chain of command and in very powerful places....now if they are dishonest about their sexuality to their wives, they are dishonest in all areas of their professional lives and should NEVER be trusted in any shape or form.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Isawsomething

Originally posted by tom502
As I've stated before, I don't think anyone really cares if there are gays in the military, I was in the military and we had some obvious gays, but no one cared. I think the negative of this new official law to serve openly, will cause more disturbance, because it will segregate gays into a special and protected class, and now the idea of having special classes to address gays, etc, will only put the gay issue into people's faces and make them notice where before, no one cared.


No one cared? I am sure the gays cared. And why shouldn't a minority be protected from potential bullying and the trampling of their rights (one that has been going on for a while now)?

I can't believe we're about to cross over to 2011 and one STILL has to be white, male, straight and Christian to get some basic respect as a human being in the US.


I agree with tom... that not many seemed to care at all while I was on AD. There were a few people that you could tell were not straight. Nobody said anything, harassed, or anything. Heck... there was one time that a close friend of ours brought his boyfriend from back home down. We continued on with our normal weekend of drinking games. Rumor did spread about it to those that weren't present, but nobody harassed him, complained to the Chain of Command, nothing.

However, when the topic was brought up amongst these same people, they would claim that they didn't think that gays should be allowed because of this and that. But these are the same people who trated our fellow friend with respect. Obviously we had some naturally respectful people around, but there are instances where people join the military that don't have the same at home training and would have treated him differently. That's where these briefings about treating homosexuals come into play... and that's why it is necessary. Better to start it first before someone gets seriously injured or killed simply from being openly gay.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Grigg's interview and any solid evidence, photographs, films etc., of military brass engaging in any of the antics described by her, will be much less damning, after gays are given the US Govt. Blue Ribbon Seal of Approval. The most damning of her allegations, of course, are not the initiatory sexual shenanigans she talks about, but the alliance of the military and the mob, the trade in weapons and drugs conducted by the military and the recruitment of psychologically disturbed young people for grooming as utility murderers.

There is no longer a real, comparatively easily acessible, lever with which to pry some of the biggest criminals out of the military. The unintentional collateral benefit will accrue to the many honorable gays already in the military.

This is a major initiative in American military culture. I tink it is legitimate, at least on this website, to look at it from a conspiratorial angle.


edit on 29-12-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2010 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Gays are human beings and not above sexually harassing a straight man any less than a straight man might harass a female. I recently had to fire a gay employee who kept sending sexually explicit emails to a straight employee even after being warned that it was a violation of company policy. He made is clear that he had a strong romantic attraction to the straight employee and this caused a huge problem in the department I am responsible for. He made numerous statements that the straight employee should just admit that he was gay.

Due to the nature of the problem our company felt it necessary to involve a lawyer to represent the companies interests and make sure that we were not opening ourselves to any lawsuits accusing us of sexual discrimination.
As a result the problem persisted much longer than I would have allowed and the straight employee had to endure several weeks of continued harassment until the lawyers determined that we were clear to fire the gay employee.

To assume that some gays in the military will not sexually harass their fellow soldiers is extremely naive. I pity the ribbing some straight soldiers will have to endure when they become the object of affection by some openly gay soldier who may feel protected by the military's new policy. This is a bad policy in my opinion. I think it is just a matter of time before this issue blows up and causes massive unrest in the military.




Understandable... just the same way that there is already sexual harassment training in place for those that are not gay. Doesn't mean that there will be more coming from gays either. And let's not forget that sexual harassment from MEN upon WOMEN is just as equally important to keep an eye on... if not more important.
edit on 29-12-2010 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
This is a bad policy in my opinion. I think it is just a matter of time before this issue blows up and causes massive unrest in the military.


...its a good policy... religious zealots in the military who cannot control themselves and follow orders, need to resign and try to get away with their paranoid bigotry in the private sector...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


You are spot on the mark, I see it happening already and it will cause a major back lash. The heterosexuals in the military are going to need alot of support from civilians and they've got mine and they will have the support of a majority of the American public.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


No, it's called tolerance, acceptance, and having value for human life. I would rather have someone who has all those qualities defending my freedoms than some intolerant, stubborn, backwards jackass who allows a bit of fear and ignorance to trump his or her original passion for joining the military.

It weeds out those who want to serve and protect the United States with those who cannot adapt to change and face adversity, which is what the typical US soldier is called on to do. People who cannot accept homosexuals openly serving in the military are weak and do not deserve the title of being one of the strongest soldiers in the world, because if a soldier cannot overcome something as trivial as another person's sexual attraction to the same gender, then how in the hell can they face the adversity on the battlefield?

edit on 29-12-2010 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join