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.

 

What's a potential act of terrorism worth in gaol time?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


"They're not saying they're criminals. They're saying they're soldiers. Ok then if they're soldiers dressed as civilians and acting like civilians while living in the land of their enemy and planning attacks on their enemy then they should be subject to capital punishment as per the rules of war."

Who really cares what they are saying they are? They could be saying they're the progeny of apes...will you 'numb-dart' them and cage them because they say they are animals? I think you're getting hung up on the, 'rules of war'...whatever the frick that means, and who exactly follows this...

They are criminals, performing a criminal act and should be (as they were) prosecuted by the laws of the land.
Australia is not at war with these people, have not declared war status with them, so therefore they cannot be prosecuted as combatants...except in the heads of some people who would rather ignore the fact that, as another poster has mentioned, thier land was bombed to the subsoil by INVADING forces of the western world, were not asked for thier opinion, were not consulted on the possible safety which could be afforded them throughout massive airstrikes...whether the axis-of-unevil were wearing uniforms or not makes no difference to the outcome, the results of which are reverberating around the world in many countries, in which the relevant question has been dismissed by the very people and organisations and government bodies who are redesigning the meanings of words to justify the 'means-to-an-end'...understand?

Analyse this famous quote...'If you are not with us, you are against us'...if you are not in agreeance with the ends (which you may or may not know about...you are not on a 'need to know' regime...) then you are with evil...simple logic (designed by the paragons of the written word), for simple people!...cos the truth would be a little too much...

The laws governing the 'illegal ingress' of a government facility, constituting a criminal act, were adhered to...with supplementary charges...the sentence is meted as per the requirements set out for such a crime.

Akushla




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by steveknows
 


"They're not saying they're criminals. They're saying they're soldiers. Ok then if they're soldiers dressed as civilians and acting like civilians while living in the land of their enemy and planning attacks on their enemy then they should be subject to capital punishment as per the rules of war."

Who really cares what they are saying they are? They could be saying they're the progeny of apes...will you 'numb-dart' them and cage them because they say they are animals? I think you're getting hung up on the, 'rules of war'...whatever the frick that means, and who exactly follows this...

They are criminals, performing a criminal act and should be (as they were) prosecuted by the laws of the land.
Australia is not at war with these people, have not declared war status with them, so therefore they cannot be prosecuted as combatants...except in the heads of some people who would rather ignore the fact that, as another poster has mentioned, thier land was bombed to the subsoil by INVADING forces of the western world, were not asked for thier opinion, were not consulted on the possible safety which could be afforded them throughout massive airstrikes...whether the axis-of-unevil were wearing uniforms or not makes no difference to the outcome, the results of which are reverberating around the world in many countries, in which the relevant question has been dismissed by the very people and organisations and government bodies who are redesigning the meanings of words to justify the 'means-to-an-end'...understand?

Analyse this famous quote...'If you are not with us, you are against us'...if you are not in agreeance with the ends (which you may or may not know about...you are not on a 'need to know' regime...) then you are with evil...simple logic (designed by the paragons of the written word), for simple people!...cos the truth would be a little too much...

The laws governing the 'illegal ingress' of a government facility, constituting a criminal act, were adhered to...with supplementary charges...the sentence is meted as per the requirements set out for such a crime.

Akushla


Don't you know how to quote? I can teach you if you like.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by akushla99
reply to post by steveknows
 


"They're not saying they're criminals. They're saying they're soldiers. Ok then if they're soldiers dressed as civilians and acting like civilians while living in the land of their enemy and planning attacks on their enemy then they should be subject to capital punishment as per the rules of war."

Who really cares what they are saying they are? They could be saying they're the progeny of apes...will you 'numb-dart' them and cage them because they say they are animals? I think you're getting hung up on the, 'rules of war'...whatever the frick that means, and who exactly follows this...

They are criminals, performing a criminal act and should be (as they were) prosecuted by the laws of the land.
Australia is not at war with these people, have not declared war status with them, so therefore they cannot be prosecuted as combatants...except in the heads of some people who would rather ignore the fact that, as another poster has mentioned, thier land was bombed to the subsoil by INVADING forces of the western world, were not asked for thier opinion, were not consulted on the possible safety which could be afforded them throughout massive airstrikes...whether the axis-of-unevil were wearing uniforms or not makes no difference to the outcome, the results of which are reverberating around the world in many countries, in which the relevant question has been dismissed by the very people and organisations and government bodies who are redesigning the meanings of words to justify the 'means-to-an-end'...understand?

Analyse this famous quote...'If you are not with us, you are against us'...if you are not in agreeance with the ends (which you may or may not know about...you are not on a 'need to know' regime...) then you are with evil...simple logic (designed by the paragons of the written word), for simple people!...cos the truth would be a little too much...

The laws governing the 'illegal ingress' of a government facility, constituting a criminal act, were adhered to...with supplementary charges...the sentence is meted as per the requirements set out for such a crime.

Akushla


Don't you know how to quote? I can teach you if you like.


Your 'quoted' text appears within Quotation marks...if you are not aware that the quoted text is yours...you have a problem...

...and I fail to see what your erroneous perception of my 'quoting' skills have to do with the OP, or my replies to it...

We are clearly from different viewpoints...I am quite happy to agree to disagree, this is a valid position for us both...

Good luck
Akushla



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Just a quick question

If as many claim, the 911 attacks were the work of the US intelligence and not of OBL then why did OBL claim responsibility for the attacks. Why not deny it and support the view of the 1000s of conspiracy theorists that the 911 attacks were caused by the US government.

Just a bit unclear as to what the islamic holy jihad would get from going along with the US cover story.

Kev
www.theantichristidentity.com...
(shining the torch on the murky world of the new world order)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmf21734
Just a quick question

If as many claim, the 911 attacks were the work of the US intelligence and not of OBL then why did OBL claim responsibility for the attacks. Why not deny it and support the view of the 1000s of conspiracy theorists that the 911 attacks were caused by the US government.

Just a bit unclear as to what the islamic holy jihad would get from going along with the US cover story.

Kev
www.theantichristidentity.com...
(shining the torch on the murky world of the new world order)


I've asked this question many times to people. . I usually just get crickets, Homer Simpson looks and then the continued rant that 911 was an inside job.




top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join