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.

 

This is how to deal with terrorists....

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashburn
When a group of people are on their way to kill U.S. troops, coalition troops and Iraqi police officers, they need to be bombed. In fact I hope they went back and destroyed the damn safe house.


No, not when the US troops don't have a legitimate reason to be there.
Its a simple enough notion to grasp. In the US, we have the notion of self defense. When someone forces entry into your home and you kill them, you are not punishable by law. Connect the dots.

U.




posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan

If they are terrorists, they deserved what they got.


I guess I'm just going to have to get used to having to point out the misuse of the word terrorist over and over and over and over and over...

Is there nothing but innocent civilians and terrorists in your census of Iraq?
Sadr's militia, for the most part, are neither. They are insurgents: people who have taken up arms to fight the US and coalition troops because they want them out of the country. If you want to explain how that qualifies as terrorism, be my guest.

U.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
not gettin bogged in here, but one little thing...

'if they were terrorists'... well the roof of the house didnt have the requisit pile of burning bibles and severed infidel heads.. so how do we know??????? If there was a large source of painstakingly built up human intellgence, then we still can only say 'probably'... but there aint (judging by the conflict so far...) so go figure

this thread kinda boils down to
'to smite Iraqis.. or not to smite'...

so im outta here!



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
A root that is being watered and fed by the man hacking at the braches. He makes more work for himself
, blindly hacking at branches when infact he should be focusing on the root.


A ray of truth in the darkness. Thank you.



In plain terms. Osama dies you think it will end? To much money is being made, too many corps pockets are being lined and too much land is being 'claimed'. Osama is the reason for most things. They need him alive! for now anyway.

[...]

George and Osama.....what a team!


I agree. And this is not only your opinion. Bush has demonstrated that he was far more interested in invading Iraq, a nation which had not threatened us and was deemed unable to pose a threat even to his immediate neighbours, than in capturing Bin Laden. Hearing him bumble a confession of how disinterested he was in capturing Bin Laden was one of the most embarassing moments in my life as an American citizen.
There is not even the shadow of a doubt that what our leaders want above all is for the War on Terror to continue for a very long time. Their actions spell this truth out in blazing letters. Why else would they try so hard not to capture the culprit for the tragedy that sparked this dark era, while busying themselves with creating more hatred for our nation in unrelated areas of the Middle East?

U.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
What if it turns out that 911 was a staged event to cheaply demolish no longer financially viable buildings and as a by product give the whole intelligence apparatus an 'enemy' that could use to draw financial and moral support and as a final by product created a political climate suitable to war mongering hawkish politicians?
.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
What if it turns out that 911 was a staged event to cheaply demolish no longer financially viable buildings and as a by product give the whole intelligence apparatus an 'enemy' that could use to draw financial and moral support and as a final by product created a political climate suitable to war mongering hawkish politicians?


This argument falls apart on your first premise. There are many more inexpensive ways to demolish buildings. The loss of life itself raises the total cost, not to mentions the hardware and data that was lost by the businesses occupying the buildings. The WTC was a very financially viable piece of real estate. Oh and there's the matter of the economic impact on New York, the airline industry, and on and on.

I won't bother to address the rest. Beyond that, it is irresponsible to insist that the politicians were in anyway directly responsible for 9/11 for what ever reason, even if Michael Moore makes millions doing so.

[edit on 04/8/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I won't bother to address the rest. Beyond that, it is irresponsible to insist that the politicians were in anyway directly responsible for 9/11 for what ever reason, even if Michael Moore makes millions doing so.

[edit on 04/8/16 by GradyPhilpott]


We are talking about a theory and nothing more, but lets examine it.

Getting stuck over the question of cheap building demolishing is short-sighted. The real gain is the excuse to launch into a campaign of strategic annexation, and the profits from this campaign outweigh any loss in human life and real estate (from the hypothetical view of those who may have masterminded this).

As for Michael Moore, I happen to dislike him but you have grossly mischaracterized him. I have not seen him suggest that politicians were directly involved in the Twin Towers incident. He makes a compelling case for several things:

a) that intelligence was ignored that could have clued us into the attacks,

b) that we were more interested in giving the Saudi elites free passage out of the country immediately after the event than in interrogating them,

c) that we were more interested in invading Iraq than finding Osama Bin Laden

d) that the number of Iraqis involved in 9/11 was a resounding zero

e) that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis

Do you have a problem with his making these facts widely known?

So the theory of direct involvement is a valid theory. Its just so repugnant that most Americans would rather not believe it.

The fact that a similar plan has been drawn up before by our joint chiefs of staff (Operation Northwoods against Cuba) makes it all the more credible.

I doubt you will have a response for this lucid assessment...

Stay well,

U.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Others are more emotional about it. When they are targeted by murderers they will become less squeamish about it. Their day will come. The terrorist won't look to this board to find their freinds.


Grady,
Unless your physic, don't post ignorance like that!

I have had 3 friends die at the hands of terrorists. It was a PUBLIC bombing and it was when I was around 7 (I am 24 now) so I was too young to understand anything. During my dads time in the British armed forces many more attacks happened. When we lived in Ireland and left the car we had to check underneth EVERYTIME incase there was a bomb underneth. I could not tell strangers my dad was in the forces because he might become a target. He was not even any sort of high rank. It was the Same for ALL other service peoples, anyone one of them.

He is out the army for 13 years now and even though he lost people he knew he could see the point of the IRA. I can too, we don't agree and never will but the point is the key. Its more complicated then them bad us good. That is all I am trying to say.

Waging war has got the Human race nowhere fast. Time for a different approach!

The pioneers of a warless world are the youth who refuse military service - Albert Enstein

[edit on 16-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You see cargo, you just haven't been around long enough or put enough time into studying you perspectives to really understand what is going on. Why was the war in Vietnam unjust. The global expansion of communism was the largest threat to our way of life and the US was in a treaty to protect its members, SEATO. It would have been unjust to ignore that threat. To understand the cost of communism, read The Little Black Book of Communism. Failing that, get to know some of the Vietnamese in your community and ask them about living under communism.


Vietnam war = failed mission. It's very sad. I admire my countrymen for responding to a call for action that was ultimately unecessary, and wish to return the favour by helping ensure such mistakes never happen again. I owe that much and more to them. My country has given it's fair share of lives in support of your country's wars, but I don't sit here expecting such a favour to be returned. As far as I am concerned we should think and act as if we are alone, because that is exactly where I think we will find ourselves one day. The Vietnam war was lost. Now the whole country is communist. I still fail to see the threat.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You live in hope that my generation will die out? Have no fear, my friend, that is the reality of life. Then you will be left to fend for your own liberty. You have my blessing.


That's a given. You misquoted me. My original post is still there and available for review.



And might you consider that having lived 55 years and acquired an advanced education that I might have actually learned something and that your "forward thinking" is not as forward as you might think? Might you consider that I once was as deluded as you and that through the process of experience and education, I might have come to the views I now hold?


I am half your age, I am no child. I am a young and well educated inheritor of the situation your generation has delivered. Lets look at your comment from another perspective. You have lived 55 years, aquired an advanced education suggesting that you might have actually learned something, when in effect you retain a level of reasoning that has not advanced past 1965. I don't need to remind you that there are well educated Vietnam Vets who are vehemently against the Iraq war. Are they deluded?



Naw. Why learn from those who've gone before?


Oh, but we have. What we learned from history is that you have learned nothing from history.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by cargo]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It's worth noticing how the cause and effect principle played out in this thread. The title of the thread is nonsense -- it was a combat operation and not a counter-terrorist one.

Then somehow, everybody slipped into discussing the (non-existant) 9/11 connection, and arguments that US should plant democracy in Iraq at any cost, even if it requires ridding this country of many of its citizens.


Let's close this topic already. If somebody gets a kick from viewing the videotaped multiple deaths, so be it. They need psychiatric help, but it can't be provided here anyway.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I've been gone for a couple of days and missed an obviously lively discussion. I'm so glad to see so many Americans passionate about America.

I grew up in Virginia. Many times as a child we went to visit the battlefield at Yorktown where General Cornwallis surrendered the British army and gave America it's independence. On the field that day, there were more French soldiers than American soldiers. We didn't have enough people to fight that war ourselves. But the French believed in us, and hated King George as much as we did. So they fought side by side with us. In fact, they loved our spirit so much that 100 years later they gave us a statue and set it up in New York harbor to exemplify the American spirit.

Imagine for a moment, if the French had said, "Ok, now we're going to set up the kind of government that WE think you should have and, force you to accept it." Every one of us on this thread would have fought it any way we could, with weapons and words.
And suppose the French had said, "Hey, we know what's right for you, we just got rid of that evil dictator and freed you. So you owe us, so just pipe down and we'll show you what kind of government you need."
We'd have fought them to the death. It's OUR damn country, take your troops and go back to France. Thanks for the help, but only we know what kind of government we want, and it's going to be "By Americans, Of Americans, and For Americans."
But suppose the French persisted, "No, we have to prevent the Democrats (or Republicans, or evangelical christians or KKK or whoever) from taking over your government!" We would still have responded, "No, this is OUR country now, and we're going to work that out for ourselves! Go home!"
The French did go home, they never interfered with the foundation of The United States. But we still had a long way to go. Within 100 years we had a civil war, where America split into 2 different countries and we killed each other. We're still fighting every 4 years for one party to gain control of the government.
Here's my point: We have no idea what Iraq is meant to be, and it's really none of our business, any more than the French had any idea what America was going to be and it was none of their business. Maybe it needs to be 3 smaller countries, maybe it needs to join up with a neighbor. We don't know. They have to work that out for themselves the same way we did.
We did our job, mission accomplished as our President said. The rest is up to them.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Terrorism wins,
every time you and I argue and fight between ourselves, terrorists rejoice. The angrier and more divided we become, the more they win. All they had to do was push the first domino, we have done the rest for them. We have bankrupted ourselves in a global war, suspended our own freedoms, and divided ourselves over ideals about right and wrong.
If we are going to preserve the Union, we need to be United. Not United in our arrogance. Not United in our hatred. America isn't great becuase we can blow the ass off a country 10 times smaller than us. That just makes other people want to attack us.
America is great because we are the land of opportunity, where everyone can persue their own dream. That's where patriotism is born: pride in what we have built with our own hands.

Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, and countless other nations are democratic and not being attacked, and no one has to keep dying to keep those countries free. They maintain their freedom by never doing anything agressive towards another country. It's very simple, don't try to steal other people's resources, and don't give them reasons to hate you, and you won't be attacked.

We think we are attacked because we are some shining beacon of freedom. Nonsense. We are being attacked because we think we are better than everyone else. If some guy comes to work at where I work, and takes the attitude that he's better than the rest of us, we'd all be linin up to kick his ass after work. It's just human nature.

The biggest threat to our national security is our own arrogant "Better than everyone else" attitude. The sooner we lose this, the sooner terrorism ends.
Thank you my friends, it's been a great thread and I've learned a lot from all of you.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by caveman
Here's my point: We have no idea what Iraq is meant to be, and it's really none of our business, any more than the French had any idea what America was going to be and it was none of their business. Maybe it needs to be 3 smaller countries, maybe it needs to join up with a neighbor. We don't know. They have to work that out for themselves the same way we did.
We did our job, mission accomplished as our President said. The rest is up to them.


I agree with you that the Iraqis should choose their own path.

In the short term it might look horrendous.

Iraqis could be fighting other iraqis in a civil war.

It is for this reason why the US must stay (from the point of view of the Bush Administration). American citizens wouldn't like to see a civil war when their military had gone in and promised freedom and democracy and would most likely kick Dubya out.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by caveman
We think we are attacked because we are some shining beacon of freedom. Nonsense. We are being attacked because we think we are better than everyone else. If some guy comes to work at where I work, and takes the attitude that he's better than the rest of us, we'd all be linin up to kick his ass after work. It's just human nature.

The biggest threat to our national security is our own arrogant "Better than everyone else" attitude. The sooner we lose this, the sooner terrorism ends.
Thank you my friends, it's been a great thread and I've learned a lot from all of you.


Great post (all of it - there are funny rules on quoting large chunks)



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut
I doubt you will have a response for this lucid assessment...


I'm a mental health professional. Your arguments are not lucid. I can only assume that you aren't either.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Watch the destruction of building 7. It does not weaken and collapse on any particular side where more debris fell like one would expect, it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. Watch the explosive charges that pop horizontally out of the windows BEFORE the floors several stories above it pancake down. It is a controlled demolition, luckily everone was evacuated so no one was really close to see even better detail of how it was done.

If you don't look with both your eyes and mind open you will not see.
.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
ok let me get this straight.... islam-fasict = terrorist?

regardless they have a bone to pick with the american government, also any and all associates of the american government (which would be the iraqi capatialist traitors, who run to the US for security or as we refer to them inocent civilians).

now lets look at it from the average iraqi point of view, the most powerful nation in the world come into your country and royaly F*CKS it up. a nation who is portrayed as the ultimate creator of evil in the eyes of your religion. a nation whos sole purpose for occupation in your so sacred land is to harbor and give birth to a bastard child known as economic prosperity. now lets say you think its all well and good for them to bring some of that western wealth to your dreadfully boring desert, you think wow thats pretty nice of them. then you go for a walk around the neigborhood and realize holy $#!+ this is not economic prosperity this is complete chaos!

due to my superb logical reasoning i will assume that around 80% of iraq is completely anti american (not counting kurds, even though they probably hate us too). to what length will we go to get our way? will we completely ignore the voice of the nation we have come to liberate? will we systematicaly annihalate each and every person who takes sides with islam-facist? IMO it wont come to that they are smart and are scared of our LGB. all praise our lord and savior LGB!


yes i know it is an utterly dreadful sight to see those men destroyed, as the current situation stands, LGB seems like the fastest way to stability. it is really sad that it has come to this, but the faster they realize that victory is completely out of the question the faster they will lay down their arms and the bloodshed will cease...

[edit on 17-8-2004 by sturod84]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Watch the destruction of building 7.


Where does one watch this?



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by upuaut
I doubt you will have a response for this lucid assessment...


I'm a mental health professional. Your arguments are not lucid. I can only assume that you aren't either.


If you were a mental health professional, you would not attempt to diagnose people's need for medication after reading a couple of posts on the internet


Anyway, its becoming old stuff: you have not confronted a SINGLE one of my points in this entire thread with anything better than slurs about mental health. Its perhaps the least subtle hallmark of a troll.

Carry on.

U.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut
If you were a mental health professional, you would not attempt to diagnose people's need for medication after reading a couple of posts on the internet


Anyway, its becoming old stuff: you have not confronted a SINGLE one of my points in this entire thread with anything better than slurs about mental health. Its perhaps the least subtle hallmark of a troll.

Carry on.

U.


I am a licensed mental health professional. I have made no diagnosis of you. Your posts are not lucid. They are disjointed and disorganized because you do not take any of my posts as a whole. You break them down into sections which destroys the continuity. By the time you are through, I just don't know what you are trying to say, as you posit nothing of real substance, except that you disapprove of my position.

Maybe you think this is debate. I don't and frankly, I am just at a loss as to how to respond to such nonsense, so therefore I do not! In one case, I responded with humor about your taking your meds and hitting the sack, which even those of my profession can do in a venue such as this. And when you referred to your "lucid assessment," I just had to tell you that your assessment is not lucid. It is overly concrete in some cases and overly abstract in others. So in the process of breaking all my posts down into bite-siza chucks, you miss the spirit of the post and fail to take into consider the post I might be responding to. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.

In six years of specialized education, including a year of intensive clinical training and five years of experience, I've gotten pretty good at this. Do I think your mentally ill? No. You just need to get the chip off your shoulder, develop some finesse, and learn to present your own position directly rather than assaulting the position of another in such a piecemeal, disorgainized manner. Learn to present a thesis, develop that thesis and summerize your conclusions. That's what called an essay.

It is obvious to me that you do not like me or the things I stand for and so it is not important to you that we exchange ideas. It is only important that you "deconsruct" my posts into components that are meaningless without the total context, for the sole purpose of discrediting me. Only a fool would fall into such a trap. Those who agree with you in your assessment of me will applaud your effort. Those who can see through your charade will at least understand my position.

I do not respond to you because you are obviously trying to entrap me and in doing so, you don't give me anything of substance to respond to. And just because I don't repond to you doesn't mean that I have not had good dialogues with those who have chosen to do so in a non-confrontational way.

And before you call me a troll, take a look at all the contributions I have made to this site in such a short period of time--about 15 posts per day, the last time I checked, and numerous contributions to Collaborative Fiction.

I am a contributor to this site and just because I avoid those who are openly hostile and I use the most light hearted means I can muster to do so, does not define me as a troll. If anything, you have trolled for me. Read your own posts.

Thank you.

[edit on 04/8/17 by GradyPhilpott]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join