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: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 




I think homeland security needs a phone call.


Yes, turn yourself in by all means. But don't expect Homeland Security or FEMA to care, they are only there to further corporate and political agendas.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 




Are you...are you serious! Are you american?


Yes, we are both, and American is always spelled with a capital "A", you patriotic nut. (Waiting for him to burst into flames here)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 




Why is it a silly question, unless you actually mean an unwanted question? It's the same issue Paul is bringing up, a sitting U.S. President ordering the killing of one or many U.S. citizens without a trial.


It is a silly question (Thought no one would ask this, been waiting for it too.) for two reasons.

1) Because the person asking it, asked out of frustration and desperation because they were running out of arguments. Notice the conspicuous absence of the word valid from the previous sentence.

2) Because (and this is the better reason) no one committed any crime seceding from the Union. All they did was exercise their rights as States. They voted to join the Union and should be able to vote to secede, which they did. These are Sovereign States, and even though they joined a Union - the United States - if they vote to leave that is their right too. Remember the whole Democracy thing?

But you know, we have been having this battle for a while now today. Several of us including the OP has provided evidence, quotes from the Constitution, etc. However, the other side in this debate has provided only anger and unsupportable statements. So how about it? What say you enthrall us with your knowledge of the laws of this land, the principles we are discussing, anything besides angry regurgitation of your conditioning? Can you do some of that for us? Because this has been awful one sided.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




With Terrorism the game has changed and the rules need to change.


Where is the evidence? Have you read the rest of the thread? All we have for evidence are newspaper articles and Obama-ites word for it. Again, not admissible.

Perhaps we should change rules every time anyone wants to. Would that be good? Wait, then they wouldn't be rules. Are you suggesting Anarchy? Many government shills do these days...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 




Nice try but I think this post will fail to capture the attention of the recipient of your comment.


Lol, very nice post... Too bad you got here so late. We have been having a lot of fun with these guys and their refusal to think or reason. I am actually working on my dissertation for my Abnormal Psychology major through this thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partisanity

Originally posted by Shaade

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Save your constitutional laws for humans in times of peace, and not for dangerous war dogs in times of declared war.

You will never send the NYPD to destroy Hitler surrounded by his troops, let alone apprehend him in germany.

Do know the diference between WAR and PEACE, and how it is conducted by civilisation for centuries.



Is this the best example you could come up with? do you work for Fox news btw? this is the DUMBEST example I have ever read.
1. Hitler was NOT an American citizen.
2. There was in fact a DECLARATION OF WAR issued against Hitler and Germany during WW2


Why are you bothering arguing with someone whose only defense is the exactly same nonsensical rhetoric -- the exact SENTENCE -- that the FOX NEWS REPORTER said IN THE VIDEO OF THE OP.

This guy is a doomed. This is what happens when you let your political party and the MSM do 100% of your thinking for you -- you cease to have any sign of logic.


you are so right and thank you, your words has opened my eyes and allowed me to pull myself out of the "DEE-DEE-DEE" zone where I had to enter in order to talk to these "cold blooded american" retile shape-shifters, lol
you deserve a star for your injection of sanity and wisdom friend.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




This is not about Muslims, it's about Islamic Extremists on a Jihad. Muslims are kind decent folk and I know quite a few now.


Actually it's about the Constitution. You guys have been trying to derail this thread all day. Sorry, we will not let you do it. If you want to talk about jihadist derpa derpa, start your own thread. this one is about Ron Paul's remarks and the fact that the Constitution was not followed by someone who taught Constitutional law, the President of the United States, who, coincidentally swore an oath to uphold it. Guess he blew that one huh?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Shaade
 




in order to talk to these "cold blooded american" retile shape-shifters, lol


Hey you borrowed that from me... Cool, you may borrow from me any time you like.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Shaade
 




in order to talk to these "cold blooded american" retile shape-shifters, lol


Hey you borrowed that from me... Cool, you may borrow from me any time you like.


I can recognize golden sage quality words when I read them, and your words in that post was pure gold.
Just like Im able to recognize truth when I see it, thats why Ron Paul will have my vote in 2012, provided this country/world makes its that long.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


Al-Awlaki has supposedly been killed three times now. He was a CIA asset, based on all of the info that is out there floating around. He was #2 on the most wanted list before 9/11 and he was admittedly at the pentagon the same week of 9/11, meeting with heads of military operations.....So you do the math bro.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


And what she DID mention was they(the Nazis) were TRIED and CONVICTED. Not ASSASSINATED!

There is a BIG difference! Great post! thanks!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Save your constitutional laws for humans in times of peace, and not for dangerous war dogs in times of declared war.

You will never send the NYPD to destroy Hitler surrounded by his troops, let alone apprehend him in germany.

Do know the diference between WAR and PEACE, and how it is conducted by civilisation for centuries.



it is you that evidently does not know the difference between war and peace.. A terrorist is not a solider he is accountable by the same laws as you and me... Look at the IRA in the UK. Active members that were caught were tried in a court of law. No one should be above or below the law...
poor comment on your behalf...



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Before I forget, thank you for your highly regarded posts on this thread.. You've murdered it!!
edit on 6-10-2011 by rstregooski because: it's early, c'mon!!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Once again, Ron Paul hit it right out of the f*cking park, wow.

I'm speechless.

And how does doing something wrong previously justify doing it again? Thats the argument we used to make to our parents in 5th grade. "Well Tommy's parents let him do it"...

When you're guided by morals, principles of liberty and individual rights, seems like they cant troll you no matter how hard they try.

Our country cannot take 4 more years of an establishment Republican or Democrat. Its not a matter of can Ron Paul win. Ron Paul absolutely has to win, no question about it.




edit on 6-10-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27
reply to post by greenovni
 

I think with my heart and im always on the side of humans as a whole...not some pin and paper with a bunch of silly writing and stupid laws that some one made up a 1,000 years ago.


HAH! Oh, I just can't resist!

Let me give you the most mundane of history lessons, as you don't even seem to grasp the most basic of US history. This explains a lot of your ignorance, I suppose. Uneducated, and unwilling to learn.

The US constitution was ratified in 1788, and formal government under the U.S. Constitution began in 1789. NOT 1000 years ago. It may seem like a long time ago, but it really is not. The founding fathers were not that out of touch with the issues we face today, in fact there are MANY similarities.

Just to educate you a little bit (if you will allow it), 1000 years ago the area of the world that we are currently occupying was in its golden age. In fact, they were on the verge of developing what we now know as the "scientific method."

The US did not exist. In fact, Leif Ericson had just discovered North America and named it Vinland.

China's Song dynasty was actually the most powerful empire in the world.

The population of the entire world was a mere 310,000,000.

Perhaps if you stopped thinking with your heart and attempted to think with the organ designed for it (the brain), you might come to conclusions not clouded with irrational hate. Likewise, if you do not understand the past, you are doomed to repeat it. Do you realize that a small part of why we decided to separate from the king's rule, was that he was beginning to have individuals assassinated without due cause? We do NOT want to open the door up to even the POSSIBILITY of this type of behavior happening again, and our founding fathers did what they could to prevent it from happening in the future. You ignore their words and insight at your own risk.


edit on 6-10-2011 by MyrTheSeeker because: clarity



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


In case you didn't notice: The attack had to have been ordered by Potus or at least the program to kill by drone.
Potus is not a right wing extremist he is left wing, and very extreme. Even so many right wing people believe in killing terrorists. After all it is their goal to kill us. ?Their goal is to kill anyone who does not believe in their god, and way of life. Both left and right wing. They want to kill us all.
DH



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
A terrorist is not a solider he is accountable by the same laws as you and me... Look at the IRA in the UK. Active members that were caught were tried in a court of law. No one should be above or below the law...


There you said it. "that were caught". Was Anwar caught? Nope. He died a combatant whom had misused a large popular religion in the world with a large swarth of humanity to declare Jihad - Declaration of war upon mankind, and had participated in ACTUAL acts of murders upon non - combatants - innocent civilians for a decade.

But thats Anwar. When the facts had been proven his death was justified, the terrorist sympathizers now switch to claiming that the president has extraordinary powers to kill anyone without due process under the constitution, american or otherwise. That is nothing more than to spread fear and fear mongering upon citizens.

There is a danger that one day, a politician may just wrap a towel upon a opponent's head and claim he is al qeuda, a jihadist, and must be executed on the spot using the powers of declared war regulations and conduct.

But first, that man had to be apprehended. If he is innocent, an absolute unknown even in intelligence circles, he will not put up a struggle but surrender. Once he surrenders, under the Geneva convention, he cannot be ill treated, and will be given a military trial as the war time germans whom surrendered were given.

If he is innocent, he walks free. So there should be no fear of abuse on war powers by they President.

But if he runs, and refuse to subject himself to a trial to prove charges made against him, hiding and resisting lawful arrest, making arrest difficult and dangerous to other precious lives, then he has no respect of laws, and had only compounded his error. Worse if he is not as innocent as he claimed, and continues to murder others.

If he has no respect of constitutional laws, continue to defy society by murdering further, why should constitutional laws be offered to protect him?

Laws were meant to protect societies, and those whom may not be familiar with laws but are prepared to work within the laws, BUT not meant for beasts whom had turn their backs to society, murder innocent members of it and its laws.

===================

Sidenote: I am aware of the current against authority figures both in politics and economics, not just in US, but worldwide. And some may be thinking VIOLENT revoulution is the answer, and fear being apprehended and not afforded constitutional 'due process' before they can make their supposed change.

But it is NOT. VIOLENCE is NOT the first answer as an option. Even the Libyans knew that. Arab Spring and other various springs never resorted to violence as the 1st option.

Spring is in the air even if it is now coming winter. The success of it lays not in violence at the initial stage, nor does it seek for violence, and hopes only that the leaders wakes up enough to correct their errors without resorting to killing their own citizens, but when leaders turn into beasts, then the only response possible will have to be made - to defend oneself.

Thus, DO NOT opt for violence, or get others to use violence as the 1st option. Human lives are precious and each human means something special to another. Revolutions can be achieved in Peace, and where possible, with minimal loss of precious lives.


edit on 6-10-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



Why are you talking about the geneva convention. This has nothing to do with it. The geneva convention is for war criminals this man was not a war criminal.
Maybe you are correct and this man has no respect for the course of law. However that does not negate from the fact that he should be tried by a court to determine if he is innocent or guilty. You set a very dangerous course when you determine people to be either above or below the law..
Everyone should be entitled to a far trial, it matters not what crimes they have commited.....

The same happened with Bin Laden... very poor show USA!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Why are you talking about the geneva convention. This has nothing to do with it. The geneva convention is for war criminals this man was not a war criminal.


You refuse to accept that Jihad is already a Declaration of War, misusing a popular religion of peace with a substantial amount of mankind subscribing in, to acheive it, and had already murdered thousands of mankind for a decade.

Please do not be another Neville Chamberlin in 1939, who continually pacified his own citizens and the world that Hitler is a peaceful man when in actual fact Hitler had already started war in Europe. Chamberlin was the sole cause of inaction that had lead the deaths of thousand europeans whom had sought for England's treaties of protection should they be attacked.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


The geneva convention is to be used on war criminals.... What part of that do you not understand.
You cannot legally go to war with groups of people .... You go to war with nations..
edit on 6-10-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join