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 Napolitano Asks 'Who Will Obama Illegally Kill Next

page: 10
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Are you always this dramatic and hysterical?

Try attempting to have a conversation with me about it instead of making ridiculous assumptions. Ok? Ok.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


I'm not sure that I'm entirely following your post. Were you claiming that I made a straw-man argument, or that Neo did?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


once you know where someone is coming from you know the how the conversation will end up.

ideology is the product of a lifetime experience no rights no wrongs its just how we all pervceive the world.

and another element to any postion is perception.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Whatever happened to Mr. peaceful Obama? You know the guy who claimed that he would bring our troops home. You know the guy that blamed bush for the wars.. and the guy who said he would stop water boarding at Guantanamo bay.

well we're still in afghan and iraq...oh and now in libya too. Can't blame that one on bush can ya?
And he just approved the killing of a terrorist whose location was given up by water boarding.


Obama you are a liar.

...maybe now you finally realize how foolish your campaign promises were...

Or maybe you're just like every other president who says whatever will get him elected.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by UcDat
 


I'm not sure that I'm entirely following your post. Were you claiming that I made a straw-man argument, or that Neo did?


no that neo was responding to one

one sec ill get it



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX

Israel attacked Americans too. We're not at war with Israel.


When?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by UcDat

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by UcDat
 


I'm not sure that I'm entirely following your post. Were you claiming that I made a straw-man argument, or that Neo did?


no that neo was responding to one

one sec ill get it


never mind you were right I think me brain may have shut down about 10 threads back...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by projectvxn
 


with regards to the 9-11 theory i have always thought to myself and posted a comment similar to this:

if al gore won the election in 2000 would 9-11 still have happened and would bin laden still be guilty? and would the government still get the blame and the conspiracy theories gained the traction they did?

in my opinion no they wouldnt there would have been no truther movement no nothing except a few people questioning it.

conspiracy theories are politically and ideologically driven meaning the common perception is that the us government is pure evil when republicans are in control and not evil when democrats are in control.

not really trying to make this a right left issue but i was trying to look at it from outside the box.


and ya thats a straw man argument because now we are talking about political views rather than the if they had the right to kill him.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


But how can you be so certain without assuming things or stereotyping things that a person is always coming from the same direction? A person who supports one thing could play the role of devil's advocate without letting you in on that bit of information, so based upon the perception that you think you know the direction that said person is coming from, you might attack their character by incorrectly placing them into a group of people where they do not belong.

For example, I'm an independent who likes to support issues that are supported by republicans but are not supported by democrats. Similarly, I like to support issues that are supported by democrats that are not supported by republicans. So the person I'm talking with (which has happened before) will incorrectly call me a liberal wuss or a republican/christian idiot simply because I sided with one party over the other.

The point is that you cannot always know where a person is coming from solely based upon what they say or what position they take. That perception is only an illusion that can falsely be interpreted by yourself thinking that you know the other person inside and out.

A person cannot always trust their own perception, and a person's ideology isn't always so set in stone that it is unwavering or unchangeable.

My ideology mirrored a lot of what Obama campaigned on. But after he went turncoat on several of his issues, I lost faith in him. I am not a democrat, but I supported a democrat. I am not a republican, but I changed my opinion on the aforementioned democrat. I'm not libertarian, but I support a lot of what Ron Paul is saying present day. Now, whether I'm being lead on by Ron Paul in some way, and he turns out to be some kind of NWO puppet is left to be seen, but I can assure you if he becomes a different person than who he appears to be now, I'll be kicking myself for buying into another person's lies and I will not continue to support him beyond that point.
edit on 5-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Osama Bin Laden is a made up persona or created one, by the cia. Its all a lie, the most ridiculous lie going. So, good for the judge, but......



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


ridiculous?
point out ridiculous please
when using that word


I'm sure you seen me enough to know I'm yelling for emphasis out of frustration
since talking quitly doesn't seem to make much head way
hence my point

what will it take to get the point accross of what the justice america always brags about actually stands for?
a bullet of ones own?
one for the wife and sister and children too
thats the prescident thats just been set
good for every enemy of the state
patriots, home schoolers, amish farmers raw milk producers, VETERANS, gun owners...truthers, OATHKEEPERS ( they used that in the AFFIDAVIT whn the took th guys KID)
all on the list now
NO TRIAL
how many of those descripters apply to you VXN?


I left space around the comment directed at you for a reason
do you think that murder of the untried is patriotic?


no capitals
there is that better?

well do you?


and while you are at that
the real culprits are getting away
with america


Hysterical


what was the comment?
something like " the death of america will come wrapped in the flag"
till the last then my little yelling to awake america alive seems to be the least of Americas problems






edit on 5-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


any given stance on the issues tells everything not so much stereotyping and please where did you get attack character?

independents are fence sitters and jump on a side when it suits them no offense.

issues are pointless in my opinion because once you know the end goal of either party they become meaningless.

and i am going to stop there since we both off topic now.

the last word is yours

peace.
edit on 5-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Whether or not we had a right to kill him is pretty tricky and in the gray area. I'd say it depends on which set of laws the US ultimately stands by. Is it international law? Is it wartime law that was altered under the patriotic act? Is it the laws that everyday American citizen has to abide by? Or is it Pakistani law?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
 


Agreements with other countries on operations like this are made all the time.

1 The Pakistanis knew Osama was there.

2 The Pakistanis knew that the US was going to get him

3 The Pakistanis cannot outwardly admit they approved this action because that would mean chaos in their country.

4 You should ask yourself why the State Dept. is playing down the Pakistani involvement in this operation and continuing to give them military and other financial aid.

When a declaration of war is made every target that could be hit, every fighter that is killed, is typically not named.

There has been a continuing authority by Congress since the 1990s approving the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden.
edit on 5-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Well that seems to make your point rather well ty
Could well have been a convert agreement I dont think it was but no facts either way unless we trust the news?
Seems I read some big waves about this in Pakistan...

So they had a declaration of war in Afgan still dont see how that lets em kill a guy in Pakistan?

now Id like to see a copy of this "a continuing authority by Congress since the 1990s approving the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden"

still great job but I think we have room for more debate non?



edit on 5-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Osama Bin Laden is a made up persona or created one, by the cia. Its all a lie, the most ridiculous lie going. So, good for the judge, but......


that kind crazy talk has no place here....



sad thing is in the back of my mind it almost seems possible... wonder what the judge would think lol



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
They just declared von naughthouse (sp?) a terrorist for making silver coins
and confiscated EVERYONES silver that was stored there.
so guess who is on the list now too
thats right all the people who bought silver and gold are now terrorists too

well lets see
nativity scenes are a nono...christians are an enemy of the state
those children at waco..the ones nerve gassed...no trial
randy weaver's wife at ruby ridge ..I hear that clown got a raise..no trial there and no tial there
how many times did the US try to wack castro? no trial
no trial there

oh yeah freespeachers
definitly a bullet in the mail
and a bill for the bullet too I'm sure

pretty soon all this whacky stuff will seem normal....
no one will miss anyone
then there just won't be anyone
to care





edit on 5-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Lol, where did I get the part about attacking one's character? After you said that, you just naturally assumed that since I was an independent (which is really a classification for someone who doesn't have a solid party name to match their ideology) that I'm a fence sitter who jumps on a side when it suits me.

The only reason it might be seen that an independent is sitting on the fence is because there isn't a solid party that can match an individual's ideology that well, and because candidates from either the Democratic or Republican party typically turn out to be incompetent turncoats who imo don't deserve to have followers. It's better to keep oneself flexible and adaptable rather than play a specific side as if politics was one big football game.

It's difficult to tell what the end goal is. I thought that the end goal of the Republican part under the Bush administration was to bring the truth out about 911 and to bring to justice those who perpetrated the heinous acts. But the end goal more realistically revealed itself to be two pointless wars in two countries that had little to no relation to the 911 disaster.

Then came Obama, the supposed agent of change who's end goal appeared to be getting us out of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, helping the economy, bringing our troops home, closing down the base in Guantanamo, reversing several measures from the previous Bush administration, giving whistle blowers leniency and an outlet by which to come forth with information, etc. But the end goal again realistically presented itself to be continuing the wars in the middle east, starting a new conflict with Libya, demonizing whistle blowers and whistle blowing outlets, strengthening anti-American sentiments, strengthening Bush era measures like the patriot act, causing the US economy to deteriorate even further, and ordering the assassination of someone else on foreign soil.

All people really have to look at and to scrutinize are the individual issues, because the typical end goal of any political party is difficult and nearly impossible to determine.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


as hamid gul the pakistani general who beat the russians
said on alex jones
if the Pakistanis knew he was there so did the americans which again would make liers out of the americans

an american CIA agent was just recently busted trying to give the Taliban uranium to frame the pakistanis nuclear program
this is all CRAP
(oh excuse me ....rediculious)
30,000 pakistanis have died fighting this little invention for the US
now its MINION time here comes the fram up



and of course the taliban offered obl up in the beginning
they asked for proof
the US didn't give them proof
because this was never about OBL
this was about the uS invading and stealing everything in sight for their banker masters
because the cupboard is bare at home now

yeah rediculious



well project VXN fill you boots
well fill your boots





edit on 5-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Duh.. Gaddaffi. He tried to kill Gaddaffi before the Osama story was out but they missed him.

Anyone hear ever consider that maybe they tried to get Gaddaffi (instead killing his son and grandkids) because Gaddaffi is in the know in the ME and was one of the first people to go after Osama. If anyone could shed some light on this Osama story it's him.

The U.S. will never let him do that.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


What ticks me off is that the government chooses to do this NOW. If it was this easy to send in a team of navy seals and take him out we could have done it 9 years ago. Its OBVIOUS that this is coming out now just to win votes in the next election. And, no pictures of the body are being released, which has been conveniently dumped in the ocean. I know an internet meme that is very applicable to this moment, "Pics or it didn't happen."



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
One could only hope that he would now reassign Seal Team Six to a mission dedicated to capturing those american terrorist who were members of the previous administration and bring them to justice, namely; G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, John Hannah, David Wurmser, Andrew Natsios, Dan Bartlett, Mitch Daniels, George Tenet, Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

All of these people are complicit, at least to some degree, in the plan to lead America into war with Iraq based on lies. Not to mention the fact that many of these people should be held accountable for "Crimes Against Humanity" via their connection to Torture and Secret Renditions, (also including torture) IMO, it's more than evident that the reason these activities were undertaken on foreign soil was an attempt to escape being held accountable for their unlawful actions.

Here's an article that highlights their activities; thinkprogress.org...

Furthermore, I believe this is the only reason that Gitmo isn't closed today. To do so would mean that we try these criminals in U.S. courts where inevitably, (during the discovery process) the truth would come out leading to the prosecution of those individuals listed above. Knowing this would be the end result, I believe that President Obama doesn't want to go down in history as the man responsible for the first prosecution of an american President for crimes against humanity, as if they weren't blaming him for enough already.

I for one, would volunteer for jury duty in that trial, even if it meant flying from Texas to D.C. on a daily basis.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join