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: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted 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 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)


Ok 9/11 issue aside How is the judge wrong in this? You said you dont think he's right and that you studied the constitution so like you said we need facts not bs speculation


please show me where in American law it says its ok for the president or anyone to order someone murdered without congress a declaration of war or the likes...




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would agree with Faux News. Well, I was wrong ...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The facts you do have do not support the notion that it was an inside job either.

I have questions about 9/11 myself. But mine are based on things I know to be true. Not hysterical allegations.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Prove to me that he was "murdered".

Killing legitimate military targets is not "murder".

The president of the United State has the following military powers:

To Serve as the Commander-in Chief of the armed forces.

That means he's the supreme commander of what the military does.

And since Osama bin Laden is a legitimate military target ordering his death is legal.

Secondly the war in Afghanistan was approved by Congress.

Thirdly agreements with Pakistan have also authorized certain actions by the US in Pakistan for high value targets. This includes capturing or killing Osama bin Laden
edit on 5-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You won't shed a tear until he orders your assassination. Or a family members, because they are right-wing or left-wing radicals. Or perhaps a family member. Don't think for a moment that it can't or won't happen. We are slowly creeping in that direction. When you selectively apply the law or ignore it when it's convenient, you have anarchy. Remember, from here on out, whenever the president orders a hit on somebody, nobody in Washington will have an argument against it. Precedent has been set.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I love your circular logic ... Fail!



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Why don't you explain yourself.

I've provided my facts, where are yours?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Ok - what's a 'legal' killing?

Consider this carefully because the answer will trip you up.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
 


Prove to me that he was "murdered".


They said they killed him unless you think they be lying?


posted by projectvxn
Killing legitimate military targets is not "murder".

The president of the United State has the following military powers:

To Serve as the Commander-in Chief of the armed forces.

That means he's the supreme commander of what the military does.

And since Osama bin Laden is a legitimate military target ordering his death is legal.

Secondly the war in Afghanistan was approved by Congress.


So what show me were bin laden was named in that declaration... like the judge said his names not on it


posted by projectvxn
Thirdly agreements with Pakistan have also authorized certain actions by the US in Pakistan for high value targets. This includes capturing or killing Osama bin Laden
edit on 5-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


so that why they had to sneak in and not tell them. Which by the way is an act of war and another crime under your ruling king obama.

man i thought you said you studied it.

just maybe your off on 9/11 too?
edit on 5-5-2011 by UcDat because: tricky quotes lol



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Ah yes, humans can always depend on revenge, murder, and war to bring us all together. It truly is a glorious thing. People in middle eastern countries were brought together and celebrated the 911 attacks, and we celebrate the supposed death of Osama Bin Laden. Imo, we're all the same... I guess that's one positive way to look at things.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
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)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Yeah it makes us the same when people in the ME celebrate the killing of innocent people and we celebrate the death of a terrorist.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


But you're looking at the subject through a narrow hole inside of another box. Conspiracy theories are not entirely driven by political affiliation and political ideology. While there might have been a lot of distaste for President Bush, there is now a lot of distaste for President Obama. People who are or were democratic are questioning things about his administration on a conspiratorial level.

So how can you say so straightforward that the common perception is that the us government is pure evil when republicans are in control and not evil when democrats are in control when the general word on ATS by people from all walks of life is that the government is pure evil no matter who controls it?
edit on 5-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


the past 10 years bush was evil obama is a saint

not really a narrow viewpoint.

conspiracy theories were accepted without question for 8 years and considered to be complete junk for the last 2

thats my take nothing nowhere that says anyone has to agree with that view feel free to take it or leave it

and there is no where near the hatred and contempt for bush than there is for obama
edit on 5-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Really? Because after 911 I saw news coverage of people celebrating the United State's retaliation against the people of Afghanistan, where it has been proven that civilian innocents were killed and are still being killed. The common interest that people are celebrating is death. On both ends, I find that to be fairly disgusting.

People are celebrating without contemplating on any meaningful level just what the heck they're actually celebrating, and what the consequences from other people viewing that celebration might be.

Since when did it become okay for a civilized society to celebrate death? I was always taught by observing people at funerals that one is to be mournful and somewhat melancholy when someone dies. But I suppose if something is put in the proper context all that type of rational and logical behavior and emotional expression is allowed to be altered.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I call it a straw man argument first they build a straw man in this case the idea that this about a your political affiliation then they shift the argument to it. Pretty basic rhetorics but it seems to work well here. Its a good tool if you cant defend your position with facts.
Easiest way to counter it is to shift the debate back to the original point.

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



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I supported Obama and now I want him out of office. I believe that 911 was an inside job under President Bush, and I don't believe that Osama was killed a couple nights ago under Obama's watch. How does your take on this subject explain people like me?

I know I'm not the only person who thinks like that, so I'm certainly not an exception to the rule. I think people who are so caught up in their political affiliations might be how you're describing them, but anyone with a bit of a curious and skeptical mentality knows how to detect when something is missing, and also knows how to adjust their opinion on something of interest without their political affiliation muddling their opinion.
edit on 5-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
the "confession" is a lie if you listen to what osama said it was
"I didn't do it"
so, saying he is a legit target is BULL
the CIA admitted to making OBL vids in the NY times

like gadaffi - Lockerbie was a frame up thats why they let magrahi go
the appeal would have blown it sky hi

just like amahjinadad never said "wipe israel off the map"
no wmds
no reactor in syria

ALL BULL

so
the US and Israel have set the precident that they can declare guilt and then murder...
by Obamas rules HE is a legitamate military target
After all he isn't even a boil on a bugs butt compared to Kennedy
and look america was OK with His murder
and the death of EVERYTHING America stands for

any one can declare him the POTUS guilty
go into his billion dollar mansion
and whack the mack daddy...
oh wait
when that was tried at the whitehouse by PERPS UNKOWN
oh boy those COWARDS!
now its OK to do it to Osama
that is BRAVE and OK



so project VXN that is what you are defending
you think thats patriotic?


SAME TO
ALL OF YOU
THAT THINK MURDER OF THE UNTRIED
IS PATRIOTIC
no its IDIOTIC
LYNCH MOB COWARDICE
capitals intented
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: grammer spellin spaces I threw kitchen sink in this one i think



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


the past 10 years bush was evil obama is a saint

not really a narrow viewpoint.

conspiracy theories were accepted without question for 8 years and considered to be complete junk for the last 2

thats my take nothing nowhere that says anyone has to agree with that view feel free to take it or leave it

and there is no where near the hatred and contempt for bush than there is for obama
edit on 5-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


oops missed the quote lets try it again

I call it a straw man argument first they build a straw man in this case the idea that this about a your political affiliation then they shift the argument to it. Pretty basic rhetorics but it seems to work well here. Its a good tool if you cant defend your position with facts.
Easiest way to counter it is to shift the debate back to the original point.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join