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: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


well if you want to see proof ill dig up the BBC report on bin laden shows he was a cia asset hon

that is if you'll accept the bbc as a source and its something you really dont know...




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Sad to think anyones still taking the USA's word for anything especially Americans...





posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


It is a well known fact that the Afghan Mujahideen were funded and equipped by the CIA.

It is a well known fact that Osama bin Laden joined the Mujahideen in 80s.

These facts do NOT mean that Osama bin Laden was a "CIA asset" or that he continued to be after the Soviet/Afghan war.
edit on 4-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UcDat
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


well if you want to see proof ill dig up the BBC report on bin laden shows he was a cia asset hon

that is if you'll accept the bbc as a source and its something you really dont know...


This BBC?

In February 1998, he issued a fatwa - or religious edict - on behalf of the World Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, stating that killing Americans and their allies was a Muslim duty.



As well as the African bombings, Bin Laden was implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, a 1995 car bomb in the Saudi capital Riyadh and a truck bomb in a Saudi barracks, which killed 19 US soldiers.

"I always kill Americans because they kill us," he said. "When we attack Americans, we don't harm other people."
BBC

Save your time. I used to work in a restaraunt but that does not mean I still walk up to tables and ask people if everythign is ok.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
 


It is a well known fact that the Afghan Mujahideen were funded and equipped by the CIA.

It is a well known fact that Osama bin Laden joined the Mujahideen in 80s.

These facts do NOT mean that Osama bin Laden was a "CIA asset" or that he continued to be after the Soviet/Afghan war.
edit on 4-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night

all i see is is the American dream crumbling while the gestapo rises protest your government bs and welcome to the patriot act and the no fly list. Do good follow the rules dont complain and they take you to the cleaners more taxes less benifits and more breaks for the elites...
They want a TSA set up on every corner like having your kids felt up at the airport wasnt bad enough...

and they lie to you all the time weapons of mass destruction 9/11 was just another black flag and one of many... You want me to dig up the ones they've admitted too? Seriously your here defending them taking digs at the judge from what I know he's ten times the American any of you sycophants will ever be.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by projectvxn
 





All of these attacks make bin Laden a legitimate military target.


well in that case the Geneva Convention was violated and the person that placed the order for the attack should stand trial for war crimes...


Can you, at least, strip someone of their Nobel Peace Prize - sort of like Miss America if she gains weight?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Taking facts loosely related and patching them together and inferring meaning that is unconfirmed does not make it evidence.

Correlation does not equal causation. The problem with so many professional conspiracy theorists is that they abhor the use of the scientific method.

Secondly, if you think i'm trusting of what the government does then I recommend you read through my posting history.

Just because I disagree with Judge Napolitano on this ONE issue does not make me less of an American. And just because I don't buy your BS assertions doesn't make me a supporter of abuses of Constituional rights.
edit on 4-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i just heard a beautiful comment on oreilly just now

its not ok to waterboard people but its ok to shoot them in the head.


hmmmm i thought that comment fits rather well in this thread.


Mind if I ask who made the comment?
2nd



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I'll take your word that your not biased imo no reason not ta. But why would you think you know better than the judge and what can you show to prove your point? If this man says he's a war criminal what makes you think he's not and again why do you buy the official osama story or for that matter the myth that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

edit on 4-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
 


I don't find myself disagreeing with the judge that often. But I certainly don't agree with him here.

Osama was an enemy of the US and a military target.

Military targets get 3 things:

bullets

bombs

military tribunals

Obama chose to give the a-hole a bullet, and I won't shed a tear over it.


Let's not forget that military "targets" are only that when there is a declaration of war by Congress, which is the only LEGAL condition by which war can be waged by the United States against another country. Congress has not declared war against anyone since WW2. Perhaps you should watch the video again. Then again. Let it sink in.

Every war since WW2 has been illegal.



edit on 4-5-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Granite
 


Manning . . . is that the guy who called Obama a long legged mack daddy?

Yes, he is a "poser". the reason for the nick-name.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
thsi guy is really biased i bet he was all for it when reagan bombed gaddafis compound in the eighties (which i believe also killed a gaddafi relative). and tossing in all the other republican talking points doesnt help his argument it just makes him sound stupid. but to the main point; i do have trouble with these type of killings, but do find them justified to a certain extent, that being we did provide enough proof of his involvement in the uss cole bombing to put him on the fbi's most wanted list. i will also say i am really glad we actually put men in on the ground to do this as opposed to just using predators (which i do not like).



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
thsi guy is really biased i bet he was all for it when reagan bombed gaddafis compound in the eighties (which i believe also killed a gaddafi relative). and tossing in all the other republican talking points doesnt help his argument it just makes him sound stupid. but to the main point; i do have trouble with these type of killings, but do find them justified to a certain extent, that being we did provide enough proof of his involvement in the uss cole bombing to put him on the fbi's most wanted list. i will also say i am really glad we actually put men in on the ground to do this as opposed to just using predators (which i do not like).


You call him biased because "you bet he was all for it" when Reagan.. what? You put words in his mouth, then call him biased?

For the love of Christ, is there anyone with a brain on this site any more?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
obama will kill bin laden agian is my vote.

altho if bush killed bin laden would people still be having the same conversations

i wonder just how many people would be defending him and how many people would be condemning him.

and i wonder how many people would beleive that bush killed bin laden and then dumped the body at sea.

i wonder.


If Bush did the same, Democrats in Congress would already be trying to impeach him.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Yeah he is quite popular and quite ignorant too.
That is why he is on fox news.

Who cares if it was legal or not. Osama has killed many innocent people illegally.
And if this was Bush nobody on fox would be questioning Osama's death.

Though on a side note I think we should be-headed Osama; that is a Moslems worst fear.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Plain an simple, Obama played along for the possible political gain he could get from this, in his list of accomplishments, this would have to rank at the top.

Other than that, he doesn't have a clue, he gave an order, and watched it on a monitor, seen pictures and videos later... I'm sure it was all very convincing.

This guy would order the killing of the Pope if his advisers convinced him to.




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by UcDat



Edit Warning Very Radical please watch at your own discretion and keep all comments civil the mods are as always diligently moderating.

Thank you all and I look forward to a civil debate ATS style.
edit on 3-5-2011 by UcDat because: wow so changed this cause....

edit on 3-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

The judge is an honest American, we CANNOT pick and choose when the constitution applies, additionally this whole thing is SHADY theres to many conflicting details so far.

I commend the judge for respecting our most important document



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Isoroku Yamamoto was a WWII Japanese Navy officer, & the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack. He was remembered not only by the Japanese for this, but also by the Americans, who took the following action, as described on this site's page devoted to him:



In April 1943, Yamamoto decided to make an inspection tour of Japanese bases in the the South Pacific in an attempt to boost morale after the defeat at Guadacanal. America's intelligence decoded a Japanese message that informed them that Yamamoto was going to visit the northern Solomon Islands on April 18th. The decoded message gave arrival and departure times and specific locations. The US also gained information about the number and type of planes that would be involved in transporting Yamamoto. The admiral was still considered to be a major figure in the Pacific War and the decision was taken to kill him.

'Operation Vengeance' was carried out by sixteen P-38 Lightning fighters from 339th Fighter Squadron were ordered to intercept and shoot down Yamamoto's plane - a Mitsubishi GM4 'Betty' twin-engine bomber numbered T1-323. They intercepted two G4M 'Betty' bombers escorted by six Zero fighter planes. Both 'Betty' bombers were shot down and Yamamoto was killed. Four P-38's made the attack while the other 12 P-38's gave top cover. Yamamoto's death did a great deal to undermine morale in the Japanese military and for this reason the Japanese public was only told about Yamamoto's death on May 21st, nearly a month after the attack.


In addition (not mentioned on the site, but included in a History Channel documentary I saw), not all of the planes were shot down. Why? So the survivors could fly back home carrying the tale of what had happened.
I believe that at play here were both a national sense of outrage over the attack, & a desire on the part of the US to strike a serious psychological blow at an enemy it considered to be extremely committed, to the point of fighting to the death, no matter what the odds.

This is nothing new. What is new, at least to me, is this type of increasingly hysterical rant, ending with the question, "who will President Obama kill next?" I don't believe anyone asked if President Roosevelt would kill Winston Churchill if England "got in our way" after Yamamoto collected his paybacks.
The world has as much relative peace as it does in some places, not largely due to the goodwill of humans for each other, but because of the tremendous intimidation factor of both a nation's might, & also the idea that that nation will see to it that the "mastermind" behind a sneak attack will one day get his.

Given the type of world in which we live, an act like this is often necessary between people, & by extension, between nations as well.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by UcDat
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I'll take your word that your not biased imo no reason not ta. But why would you think you know better than the judge and what can you show to prove your point? If this man says he's a war criminal what makes you think he's not and again why do you buy the official osama story or for that matter the myth that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

edit on 4-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)


Just because he's on TV and was a former judge doesn't mean his interpretations of issues are correct 100% of the time.

I've spent a lot of time in my life studying Constitutional issues.

I don't buy the CT version of 9/11 because scientific theories require data that doesn't change it's parts with the direction of the wind to suit a narrative.

I've spent 3 years and 5 months reading the 9/11 forum and while there are questions to be legitimately asked most of the conclusions made are premature and baseless. I have yet to see any actual solid evidence that the US government or Israel committed the attacks on 9/11(and both can't be true). And the only reason people believe it is because they already harbor ill-feelings toward America and want to blame anything that goes wrong on America whether or not the accusations are valid.

I'm tired of the Conspiracy BS. I want DATA and facts. Not supposition, speculation, inference, and loose correlation. That's not fact finding, and it doesn't build a solid theory. It is unscientific to do those things and quite frankly, if you were to publish a paper based on the crap that is posted in the 9/11 forum you'd be laughed out of the room. Not because your assumptions are baseless(even though many of them are), but because your assumptions and inferences are only that.
edit on 5-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



I'm tired of the Conspiracy BS. I want DATA and facts. Not supposition, speculation, inference, and loose correlation. That's not fact finding, and it doesn't build a solid theory. It is unscientific to do those things and quite frankly, if you were to publish a paper based on the crap that is posted in the 9/11 forum you'd be laughed out of the room. Not because you assumptions are baseless, but because your assumptions and inferences are only that.


Pretty hard to get evidence when it was mostly removed, concealed or simply not there to begin with..

In fairness, the FACTS we have do NOT support the OS..




top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join