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.


On American Soil ?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by liberty2012

I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment of Texas either. I think coming up that way would be a huge mistake, and any invading force would get bogged down and the country could rush in to drive them back. It would be much smarter to come in through Los Angeles! Pay off the gangs for protection, the rest of the state is mostly unarmed, and you could mount a decent invasion.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by elevatedone

A conventional attack on america would not work....maybe an initial attack would set us back but the logistics of sustaining a war in a country protected by two oceans and exetremly far away from the rest of the world...would be a nightmare to sustain. Notice I said conventional stuff like the movie red dawn i don't believe would work here.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Danbones

Come on... that rumor has been debunked to within an inch of its life. S.1867 has no effect on the status of US citizens or legal residents. ACLU, Rand Paul, and a host of others who apparently can't read not withstanding.


posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I wouldn't be so sure. There was a thread up today that said all the softening language had been removed in the revised bill, and the more dangerous bill was set to go in front of Obama tomorrow. I didn't follow the links or look into it myself, because there isn't anything I can do about it and it is infuriating.

The bill is unnecessary, it doesn't make us any safer, and it could be used against us. Kind of like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

I think if there ever is a war on this soil, it will be as a result of all these infringements on US citizens and the unrest that it creates.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:42 PM
One of my big questions, which probably deserves a post of it's own, is what would it take for America to pull out the advanced technology that we know we have? We know that we have technology far beyond what is publicized or even used for that matter. At least we better for the black budget that we spend it on...

How many soldiers lives could be saved if we used the technology that we have.... What would it take to use it? Would it take an attack on our own soil?

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by getreadyalready still shows the same information in Subtitle D, Sections 1031 and 1032, the sections concerning military detention. Has it gone to the House and been amended, perhaps?

As far as being 'necessary'... I agree it shouldn't be necessary to have that subtitle (the overall bill is just appropriations for military projects), but when we have people wanting known foreign terrorists, people who have demonstrated in battle their desire and ability to kill our troops, a civil court trial.... well...

...maybe it is necessary is all I can say.


posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:11 PM
WWIII is already being fought on American soil but most people do not realize it because it is a war unlike any other that mankind has witnessed. It is a war on our freedoms, humanity and liberties and it has been going on for a long time now. A conventional war as most people envision it will most likely not be fought on a world-wide level because TPTB realize that with our technology there would in all essence be no winner.

However the war is going on as we speak all around the world and it is very much being fought in America too. If you read between the lines and open your eyes to the truth you will see the war that has been declared on all of mankind by the elitists in power that only seek to further their grip of tyranny and control over the masses. This is what WWIII will be, a war against society and economys brought forth by those in power. The world elitists seek to enslave the masses to the point that we have no recourse of action or ability to be self suffecient because as long as we are free, they are not in control of every aspect of our lives and way of life.

I will admit that there is a slight chance of one of the worlds wack-jobs launching some sort of preemptive attck on another country but the likelyhood of it becoming a "world war" for all intensive purposes are minuscule. Due to the current global economy that scenario is very very unlikely.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by intrepid

A lion can be pulled down by a pack of Hyenas. Just because something is big does not mean it is not vulnerable. A parasitic tick can paralyse the strongest person.

A virus could wipeout millions of people. What good is an Army or weaponry against that kind of thing?

We are all vulnerable and it doesn't matter how big an Army we have or how rich a Country is.

As for an attack of US soil...well it has been done before. Could it be done again? Anything is possible...

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:33 PM
The Continental United States is perhaps the most difficult place on earth strategically to attack in conventional manner. A prominent Japanese Admiral once referred to the United States as a "Sleeping Giant" being awakened.

I believe that WWIII if at all possible wil be waged on soil of many nations at the same time. And very possible it may lead to a civilian breakdown in nations such as the U.S.A. and lead to a civil war of sorts. So many variables, it is hard to say.

Just one opinion and not absolute.

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by tvtexan

I would have said that if USA was not constantly trying to piss and provoke Russia.From what i know russian general staff is in no mood to continue to have Amerika destabilise it .Watch the next 24 months a world war is there on the horizon.

edit on 12-12-2011 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 11:51 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

debunked ?
definition of terrorist

video link

Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens

oh he was going to veto ever wonder why?

remember the second gen Japanese.american citizens?
I guess TSA isnt fingering your childrem too has that been debunked?

you are under financial attack
why isn't Corzine beig prosecuted

you don't think the enemy knows about guns?

you don't think they might be smarter then that ?

good for them then
say good bye to freedom then it was just an illusion

Prior to the Patriot Act, records were defined as being limited “pieces of information, such as
hotel registrations, car rentals, and storage unit rentals.”27 Modified by the Patriot Act,
investigators may obtain and analyze a wide range of records that include anything “tangible”
(including books, records, papers, documents, and other items). This substantial difference permits
law enforcement agencies to access virtually any form of information in any format and quantity
loosely related to the heart of an investigation.28 The vagueness of the word tangible opens
doors to “fishing” expeditions instead of law enforcement being required to specify its
investigative intent.
The FBI’s power to demand, through the use of National Security Letters (NSL), that companies
secretly turn over personal records of customers, suppliers and employees has limited review by
judges and leaves companies with little recourse. Companies are compelled
to provide sensitive customer information without the right to question why, seek judicial counsel
or even acknowledge being directed to provide information in the first place. According to Susan
Hackett, senior vice president of the Washington-based Association of Corporate Counsel,
“government is looking to deputize in-house counsel and, generally, businesses,'' to secretly
provide a limitless unknowable fountain of information.29 This right to secretly demand
information from private companies breeds and recruits them to possibly become second order spies
who are in direct contact with the average citizen.
edit on 12-12-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:03 AM
Not saying a conventional war war will never be fought on U.S. soil, but first our enemy/s would have to:

Defeat or circumvent the most powerful naval force in the world


Defeat or circumvent the most advanced air defense systems in the world

in order to fight

The most advanced and experienced air and land forces in the world

in order to

Invade the most heavily armed civilian population in the world

while managing to

avoid getting decimated by the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world

not to mention

manage to isolate us from a powerful list of allies

A strategist that could accomplish all of that would make Sun Tzu look like a retard!

Wipe out D.C with any N.B.C. (nuke, bio, chem) or EMP and all the states still function autonomously with national, state guard, police and militia troops with millions of reserve vets to call upon.

N.B.C. the U.S. enough to conquer it and the entire world will be unihabitable.

Only two ways we lose on our own soil:

We destroy ourselves from within like the Romans did. (most likely)

I personally don't believe there has been any alien contact on earth. If there has been, then those aliens were stupid and thus defeatable. If they had the technology to get all the way to earth just to crash or get seen by some shmuck with a video phone, then they are idiots. If aliens were going to invade us they would recon from as far away as possible and strike wordwide without any contact or warning. If that were going to happen, it would have already, back when we were less technologically advanced. Every year that passes, humans get more advanced at killing all types of things.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:03 AM
eric holder and fast and furious
the ag attcking the secon amndemnt to aid mexico

Eric Holder Attacking The Second Amendment To Help Mexico?

Dear Fellow American:

I've just returned from the border between the United States and Mexico and I've never witnessed anything like the stinking, rotten level of murder, corruption, cover-up, and conspiracy confronting us today.

This conspiracy ignited two years ago when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that your Second Amendment rights are to blame for the drug crimes and killings in Mexico.

Holder and other top-level Obama Administration figures -- even the President himself -- claimed that 90% of the guns used by violent drug cartels were coming from American gun dealers.

In short, they blamed our Second Amendment rights for the violence of the Mexican drug cartels.

But leaked U.S. State Department cables have exposed this as a bald-faced LIE.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by AP-Chris

no the chinese could just ship uninspected containers to Kansas
they probably already have

US Gives China Eminent
Domain Over US Property

Reports from organizations like the Center for Security Policy have confirmed that Electromagnetic Pulse, or EMP, weapons could potentially wipe out the entire infrastructure of the United States in a matter of seconds, the consequences of which may be the death of 9 out of 10 Americans within a period of one year after the blast. Many Senators, Congressman, and terrorism experts have said that EMP is the single biggest security threat the United States faces from foreign powers and terrorist organizations. Research by EMPact America indicates that a properly deployed EM pulse weapon, or weapons, has the capability of wiping out and disabling the power grid across the lower 48 states.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:16 AM
they don't need to get fancy they just bought washington

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:18 AM
they will just get you to shoot each other

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:29 AM
reply to post by Danbones

Well, I didn't say they couldn't hurt us some, but not to the extent that we would be weak enough for them to invade us.

They could possibly set off a nukes in shipping containers at ports, but non areial blasts will not be as effective. Most of our large air bases and air defense systems are no where near ports.

EMP's would have a worse effect on the civilian population than the military. Might slow us down some with short term command and control issues, but our entire military would still exist, our guns still fire and bombs still explode.

I agree that they could hurt us, just not to the point where they could ever expect to land troops and occupy us.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Azekual

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by Azekual

No way. The United States military could and would continue to function if Washington was wiped off the map. They figured out that way back in the cold war days. The Cheyanne mountains are full off bunkers developed for just a scenario as well as Air Force One is full loaded with all the command and control gear needed to mount a defense. Not to mention the Boomers and Carrier groups around the world which are nuclear equipped as well.
In fact it would probably be more effective without all the politicians if DC was to take a hit

Cheyenne mountain, maybe.But it's location is public knowledge and it could be taken out if the enemy knew what they were doing.
But AF1 would still be within striking distance of a nuke if it hit Washington. Depending on where the sub that's targeting Washington is, the Secret Service would't be able to get Obama in the air fast enough to avoid the flashpoint, let alone the wholesale delivery of death that would immediately follow.

All of the defenses were designed to counter ICBM's which take 30 minutes to reach the desired target. That time-frame is not present in sub-launched missiles, which take less than 5 minutes depending on how far off shore they are.
The carrier groups and subs would be useless for the opening battle since, ideally, it would take place in less than an hour. The carrier groups would lose contact with washington because of the EMP. They would have no clue who to fire on. If Cheyenne is taken care of in an expedient fashion there are no other places that would have any one above the rank of colonel. Except maybe the carriers, they may have an Admiral or two. But they would still be useless if they don't know America is under attack.
Note: The carrier groups wouldn't be too hard to distract if you wanted to ensure there would be no interference, but it would be easier to pick them off in the confusion that follows.

I dont know where you get your info but i would seriously go back and read it again. You seem to think Washington DC is the central hub for everything that goes on in America and that is simply not true. Its just the capital of the country, though why its a district of columbia not sure. All Intel is transmitted in real-time via data links and not antiquated radios. Obama cannot defend his birthright let alone the continental united states, and it would take more nukes than the world could manage to get into the Cheyanne mountain complex. Then you would have to worry about the rest of the bunkers that are not public knowledge. Not to mention that AF1 is kept in a hardened bunker at Langley AFB which is south of DC near Hampton VA. Well enough away from DC.

The scenario you conjured up assumes the US would let another country stage up their military and not acknowledge the threat. Our armed forces do not sit idle on their thumbs. If attack yes their would be confusion but not on the scale you are thinking of, remember The Sum of All Fears is a movie not a scenario. Morgan Freemon could run the country way better than Obama

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:42 AM
Most of the replies are assuming that an attack on US soil has to meet certain criteria or certain obstacles. That is very limiting.

An attack could occur in a way that you do not suspect using means that have not been used before.

How can any of you be so sure that your Country is not vulnerable?

US is not exempt from an attack or global fall out.

Aside from an external threat, there seems to be a greater threat internally: Civil unrest.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by Thurisaz
yes you may have missed this S1867 and HR1540 will do just that, a simple protest =civil unrest = Hostile and Belligerent act, all go by by to Git Mo till ??? no more protest!! Do not like a bill, want to march on DC? Simple, protest =civil unrest = Hostile and Belligerent act, all go by by to Git Mo till ??? no more protest!!! Do not like low pay? Union says strike,Simple, protest =civil unrest = Hostile and Belligerent act, all go by by to Git Mo till ??? no more protest!!! or in this case no more strikes. want to join OWS and be part of the 99... wait for it...Simple, protest =civil unrest = Hostile and Belligerent act, all go by by to Git Mo till ??? no more protest!!!

edit on 13-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in