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.

 

Ron Paul Murders A Tough Anwar Awlaki Question From Fox News (Video)

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to



post by SeekerofTruth101

 


to destroy these animals whom had already declared war on humanity, had murdered thousand innocents on their missions for the past decade and is still going on?


You do realize you just referenced the United States military and NATO, every time they pick a country to go in and install democracy, right?


IRAQ
IraqBodyCount.org...



Documented Civilian Deaths from 2003 - 2011: 102,868 to 112,419


LIBYA
Libyan Death Toll...



According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 1,108 civilians and wounded 4,500 by July 13.


edit on 5-10-2011 by rstregooski because: content




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


So we can declare war on religions? Or small factions? I thought "war" was reserved for warring states, or insurgents or revolutionaries. Which one was this guy? He wasn't invading our country, he wasn't rebelling against our government, and he wasn't representing any state.

I can support assassinations. I actually think they make sense, but seeing as how we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for at least 10 years, and the one in 9/11 is in question, so what are we supposedly assassinating this guy for?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


War is often the last option when all diplomatic channels fail for nations that pose a danger to another.

When war is declared, collateral damage - a politically correct term for the death of innocents, is incurred.

Thus mankind must ENSURE always all means for diplomatic ends must be tried. When all else fails, the responsibility of human lives in the warzone lays with the nation involved, to remove them far away and not use them as baits in anyway.

That is part of the conduct of war in relations to 'collateral damage'.

As to the wars that had been conducted, I am in no position to agree or disagree with the right or wrongs of it. Wars were made and agreed upon by societies, at least in democratic societies, and thus each and every member is responsible for the decision to go to war based upon avaliable information which presents a clear and present danger to all.

All these are moot. What you are not happy about on this thread is the fear that US gov will use its powers to destroy humans uncionscionably. All I can say is to judge each case as it comes, and fight it as one sees it accordingly in the light of circumstances avaliable.

In that terrorist's case, the evidences are clear, and his destruction is fully justified by all laws of man, the destruction of a wild beast that had a hand in the murders of thousands of innocents.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


So we can declare war on religions? Or small factions? I thought "war" was reserved for warring states, or insurgents or revolutionaries. Which one was this guy? He wasn't invading our country, he wasn't rebelling against our government, and he wasn't representing any state.

I can support assassinations. I actually think they make sense, but seeing as how we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil for at least 10 years, and the one in 9/11 is in question, so what are we supposedly assassinating this guy for?


Understand that JIHAD - war against humanity, was declared first by the jihadists, amongst them Al Queda, whom had proudly claim responsibility for the acts. No other human declared war on religion or any religion. But when war was thrusted upon mankind, with thousand innocents dead, there will be a response - a battle one.

Find out for yourself more about this guy, for I am shocked that you claim to know next to nothing about that terrorist and yet presume to participate on this thread's discussion. Information found out by yourself is better than a thousand words I can lay out here for you, for only by your effort will you accept comprehension.
edit on 5-10-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
funny, ron paul gets no news coverage, but as soon as he says something like this, which some people would think is "non American" its all over the news.

# you msm.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


What I'd really like to see is Obama's reaction to all this. Of course we will never see it, we never see any of his "honest' reactions. I think that is a tradition with Presidents that has long outlived its usefulness, if it ever had one.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


First Bush loves Osama bin laden; now Ron has feelings for this trashy terrorists Anwar Awlaki.

What is this a republican fetish or something to love terrorist? lol, and he covers his republican fetish with the constitution, how pathetic.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 




Find out for yourself more about this guy, for I am shocked that you claim to know next to nothing about that terrorist and yet presume to participate on this thread's discussion. Information found out by yourself is better than a thousand words I can lay out here for you, for only by your effort will you accept comprehension.


Awlaki is not the issue here! He never has been, nor should he be considered in the least The issue is that if this sort of behavior continues, one day it could be you who faces this sort of treatment. Execution without due process is prohibited for the worst of us, so that all of us, and especially the least of us, can walk through life with the confidence that he or she will receive fair treatment. Without such confidence, this very website is an impossible venture and posting here becomes a very dangerous risk.

Just do not understand the confusion with this.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I understand the situation (not the particular guy), and if someone directly threatened my life, I would want to act proactively. I have said this many times. If the supposed jihadists openly threaten our safety, then we should be allowed to respond proactively.

Here is the problem though. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq on false pretenses, we didn't find WMD's and we didn't find Osama. BUT, we continued the missions on human rights grounds and we "liberated" their people and installed our brand of Democracy.

That is all fine, but if we are occupying these countries on human rights agendas, then we absolutely must take the high road at every opportunity and extend our "inalienable" and "self-evident" rights to everybody we encounter. This guy was actually a US citizen!

If we want to be an isolationist country, mind our own business, and decisively annhilate any threat made against us, I can support that 100%. BUT, if we are going to meddle in all the world's affairs on moral grounds, then we better dam well exercise the morality to back it up!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 




What is this a republican fetish or something to love terrorist? lol, and he covers his republican fetish with the constitution, how pathetic.


Do you have a cognizant point? Because all I can see you doing here is trivializing the Constitution. Hmm, couldn't that be considered terrorism? Well since you are a terrorist you do not need a trial. Alright boys, whack this one too, but let him sit in prison for a while without shaving for a while before we roll him out, oh and put a towel on his head for the camera.

You are being herded and it seems as though you enjoy it?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to



post by SeekerofTruth101

 


What you are not happy about on this thread is the fear that US gov will use its powers to destroy humans uncionscionably.


I'm not unhappy about anything on this thread. This thread was started because some fox news editor had the idea of searching a case where a US citizen was executed (not even by courts but still a military commission), directed the anchor to slip it in on Ron Paul, and he took it down like James Brown.




In that terrorist's case, the evidences are clear, and his destruction is fully justified by all laws of man, the destruction of a wild beast that had a hand in the murders of thousands of innocents.


This is all I have to say about that...




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 




This is all I have to say about that...


Ah, you can always count on Judge Napolitano... I remember that Obama taught Constitutional Law at Harvard University. Why does he not understand this basic and core principle of the US Constitution then? He really should you know, even if some of us obviously do not.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The question someone should ask is "Why Ron Paul is defending a known and admitted terrorist?"

Is this the side that Ron Paul is on? Does he want a fascist theocracy in the United States? Is this what Ron Paul stands for? Fascist Theocracy? Terrorism?

There's a difference between someone who doesn't like what the US Government is all about, and someone who wants to commit Jihad on that government and it's people. This is what Anwar Awlaki was all about, and Ron Paul throwing his lot with a known Jihadist? That doesn't sound like a person I would want to vote for.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by doom27
 


For real dude. It seems that more often than not, the reason Ron Paul is being interviewed by a MSM network is because they're criticizing his position on an issue and trying to make him look bad. FEMA, Iran, Awlaki, stuff like that.

But he's no idiot, so he always makes that backfire because he defends himself and explains his views.
edit on 5-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Wonderful, so surely you've seen this evidence tieing Awlaki to these terrorist plots that he was supposedly involved in? It's one thing to violate the 5th Amendment and kill an American citizen without a trial, but to withhold whatever evidence the Obama Administration claims supports their claims that he was involved in those plots is a kick in the nuts to the Constitution and the American people.


Is this the side that Ron Paul is on? Does he want a fascist theocracy in the United States? Is this what Ron Paul stands for? Fascist Theocracy? Terrorism?
You're such a troll dude

edit on 5-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


The woman is a moron.
she's using an example where there was due process.
A military tribunal.
Duh.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Wonderful, so surely you've seen this evidence tieing Awlaki to these terrorist plots that he was supposedly involved in? It's one thing to violate the 5th Amendment and kill an American citizen without a trial, but to withhold whatever evidence the Obama Administration claims supports their claims that he was involved in those plots is a kick in the nuts to the Constitution and the American people.



What was his 5th Amendment violation are you quacking about? He is an avowed self confessed Jihadist and an american who personally as citizen watched 3000 innocent americans and other fellow humans murdered on 911, AND YET CHOOSED to support the Jihadist cause to plan the further execution of more innocent humans.

If there is any kicking in nuts of the Constitution and the American People, it was him doing the kicking, and along with misguided folks like you that CAN'T bear to differenciate between constitutional laws while a nation is at peace and war regulations while at war.

Miltary tribunals are held when the aggressors surrenders willingly. Did Al Queda or any Jihadist surrender as of today? The Jihad declaration of war on humanity is still on as well as the murders of innocents around the world today, I remind you kind but misguided folks. Save your humanity and constitutional laws for humans, not deceptive rampaging wild beasts hiding in our midst please.
edit on 5-10-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 




The question someone should ask is "Why Ron Paul is defending a known and admitted terrorist?"


Uh... He is defending all our Constitutional rights, including yours, that is all.

And anyway, "known and admitted"? How do you know this? Because it was reported in a newspaper that you trust? Perhaps you should look at this. Older video, but the SOP for our Justice Department and CIA has remained unchanged.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nice attempt at a spin though. Don't get too dizzy over there.


edit on 5-10-2011 by Ittabena because: oops

edit on 5-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 




If there is any kicking in nuts of the Constitution and the American People, it was him doing the kicking, and along with misguided folks like you that CAN'T bear to differenciate between constitutional laws while a nation is at peace and war regulations while at war.


A war? Did someone declare a war? Did I miss something? This might be a little different if it were a declared war, but it is not. Even then the Fifth Amendment states "person" not citizen! Perhaps, because the US labeled him a terrorist he is no longer a person in your eyes? Better hope they never rubber stamp your file that way huh?

Lack of legally presented evidence is the issue here. The only issue. And newspaper articles or opinions from our elected officials are not evidence in any court.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Question: Was Abraham Lincoln guilty of ordering the murder of American citizens without a trial when the U.S. Civil War started? Should he have ordered the Union Army to arrest every Southern soldier instead of shooting them?




top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join