It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NATO leaders are guilty under US code of providing material support to terrorists

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
What's that ol' saying?

He who lives in glass houses shouldn't dance naked!

lol United States law.

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by Pervius

Why does the thread creator have as many Flags as Posts?

What has the amount of flags i have ,got anything to do with the thread conversation ?

In-fact ,never even noticed how many i had till you mention it.

reply to post by charles1952

there seem to be about seven people who constantly show up with very angry anti-Israel posts

Now i know why you try to pick my threads to pieces ,as you noticed I'm anti-Zionist ,i have no problem with Israeli people ,only the Zionist faction of it.

Anyway back on topic.

You've been asked about the legalities of the situation, but I haven't seen the strength of your replies. If you have the time, would you please respond to my post on the liegal side of the issue?

Link 1
Link 2

Please take the time to read the law in full from the LLI - Legal Information Institute ,Under Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 113B > § 2339B.
Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations ,and there seems to be more and more evidence of Al-Qaeda and ( LIFG )groups active in Libya ,and being armed and supported by NATO.
Thats about as simple and clear as i can make for you.
edit on 5-9-2011 by TheMaverick because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by cripmeister

Only focusing only on this one guy and his affiliations is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda has a presence in Libya, is actively involved in this fight, and the affiliations of one gang leader doesn't change that.

So focusing on what is the better part of the OP is ridiculous?

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Flyer

Exactly, just one instance is the US arming the taliban to fight the Russians. Very ironic when the same weapons were then used to kill americans later on. If they ignore their own laws, I dont see why anyone else should take notice of them.

Actually the Taliban doesn't exist in the 1980s. Look up what year it was created. It was formed in 1994 and created by Pakistan ISI and supported it financially. The British SAS, Israel instructors, the CIA, U.S. Special forces, People's Republic of China, and other Islamic states funded and trained the anti-communist Mujahideen all throughout the Soviet-Afghan war. Some of them later became the Northern Alliance(Look up Ahmad Shah Massoud and it's the same group we helped during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban government) and some of them went to the Taliban.

edit on 5-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:01 PM

I am not going to make any jokes about your post, or mock it. I will not try any debating tricks.

Please let Backinblack and your other friends know I want to open my heart to you, so we can advance together.

I have two goals on ATS. One is to increase and defend love. Hate must be exposed, and defeated, wherever it pops up. Love and respect must be encouraged. I am not so conceited that I think I can do it myself. But, I will shame myself if I don't try. My efforts will be feeble and sporadic, but I have to make them anyway.

The strong emotions of some issues serve to breed hate. We should reduce those passions until we can talk with each other, not shout at each other.

Why? That's my second goal. The increase of understanding in my mind and others. I have a reason for a belief. Then someone gives me new information. I can change my understanding, so can you.

Look for a minute at the US laws which are the basis of this thread. Fine, they are indeed the laws. Yes, I've read them and section A and C as well. If they apply, we can have one discussion. But, I am adding new information that should lead us to a different discussion.

I have said that those statutes don't apply if contradicted by a higher law. It has been argued that both international treaties, the UN positions on Libya, and presidential directives are all higher laws.

I have pointed out that the protesters don't seem to agree because they call it "legal terrorism." Also, that if the heads of NATO have diplomatic immunity they can't be jailed.

Please show me how I am misinformed so I can increase my own understanding, or accept what I offer and improve your understanding.

Remember, I have read the statutes and they are reasonably clear. But, I have also pointed out why they may not apply. Do we talk together?

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:48 AM
reply to post by charles1952

Charlie ,you have your opinions ,and i have mine ,and end of the day that's all they are ,clearly we both see the world differently.
You say presidential directives are all higher laws ,well it's not ,the president has to have congress agree ,otherwise it nothing more then a dictatorship.

The law is the law ,you can't change it to suit a agenda for globalist gains ,which is in-effect happening in Libya for instance ,NATO is a corrupt organization ,who are right in front of your eyes promoting terrorism.

You also claimed to defend love ,but you defend NATO ,and Zionist Israel ,who spread hate and deceit ,so its hard to understand your stance concerning NATO charlie.

And as I've said many many times ,I'm not here to convince people of anything ,i post/pass on the info i find or research here ,for others to make of what they will.

I think you should know ,I'm a atheist ,i deplore religion in all its forms.

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:10 PM

I don't know how to explain the misunderstanding between us, but I do deplore it.

This is not a difference of opinions, at least not on the subject and in the manner we have been discussing.

The President does many things that Congress does not agree to, the entire regulatory system for one. There are also classified decisions that the President makes that Congress need not even know about. In certain very limited areas, the President may even overrule the Constitution.

You may believe that we live in a dictatorship. That area is where we get into opinions. But in the area of law, in which I know a certain amount by having studied it for years, there is not the same room for opinions.

In the area of love, I fear you misunderstand me again. It was not my intent to defend NATO, why did you think I was? Remember that I agreed totally with Aeons who condemned NATO's policy. What I did was look at factual legal statements and approach them questioning the applicability of certain laws.

My emphasis on love was to cause a look at how we deal with each other. Not how one group deals with another, but how one person deals with another.

I applaud you for passing on the information you did in the opening post. It is intriguing and useful. But then it became less useful when you drew the conclusions you did.

Maybe your atheism is relevant, I don't know, but if you'd like to talk about that some time I'd be glad to look in on your thread.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in