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.

 

If your city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside.

page: 31
92
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spock51
 


Thats whats up, well said high speed




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spock51
I am deeply saddened by this entire event.

No argument from me, just my observations.

What happened in Watertown was absolutely, indefensibly, an egregious violation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. THAT was pure Berlin circa late 1930's. Geheime Staatspolizei, anyone?
Americans do NOT cower on lockdown. Americans go get the SOBs responsible for the carnage. THAT is how citizens in a free country support the Police.

Police Officers NEVER EVER point a tactical weapon at an unknown target. You can go be tacti-cool at the range, out on the streets only the serious and sincere are needed. If you are so damned afraid of getting shot, stay your chicken-# ass home.




Thanks for your input Spock.
Another one that gets it.

If your job is to uphold the rights of citizens and to bring others to justice, and you can't do both at the same, then you are in the wrong line of work.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 

Exactly, it is only upon being thrust into that situation can one truely understand just how much of a clusterf$%# it really is.

Which is why military, quasi-military, or para-military troops on the streets of America will not be tolerated.
(except in Boston, apparently)
edit on 28-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
I read upto page six, so i'm not completely oblivious about whats been said. a couple of points though.

I've read articles that mentioned the posse comitatous act was in fact infringed, but when i wikied the act it does excuse the national guard, reserves, and coast guard.




The difference is that this is a state issue, but the government via DHS is backing it, when they have no business in these affairs.

That is the difference between the National Guard and the Military in this issue. The Federal Government is the difference and they are backing this.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, he can point a gun at you, but you can NOT point a gun at him...


Actually, you can ... but not recommended.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by Revealation
Clear evidence that "OUR Soldiers" are ready and willing to turn against their own people
edit on 28/4/2013 by Revealation because: (no reason given)


Good Point.

It has been asked many times on this board, if the police and military would turn on their own citizens.
After reading this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have no problem doing just that if ordered by the government to do so.


After reading this thread...


Are you kidding me? Just what in the hell did you read in this thread that would make you jump to such a drastic conclusion?

The guy pointed a gun at someone in a second story window while his team was securing the area. Did he shoot? NO!

If you ask me, the guy in the window who just HAD to get that picture is a freaking moron for forcing that soldier (in a fraction of a second) to determine whether or not he was a threat. Luckily for everyone, the soldier was smarter than the photographer.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Thats the easiest question in this thread to answer.

The only time "soldiers" armed for combat need to be on the streets of any American city is when we are at war, invaded by a foreign army, and actually fighting for the freedom of the people.


And how long should we wait to make that determination? After 10 bombs have gone off? 100?


I think it will be obvious, by the many military units deployed, the civil defense announcements etc...

It doesn't matter if 100 bombs go off in New York, that does not equal an enemy invasion, the means a bunch of idiots are acting like idiots, and people with guns should be taking care of them......oh ya, they don't have any in New York.

So they would have no choice but to hope for a police lock down to handle it, with jack booted thugs, and tanks in the streets......

That's why I live In Texas, and lived in Indiana before here, both have common sense laws, both still depend on the people to do lost of their own protection, with their own weapons, and neither have a problem with the police instituting martial law over 1 person on the loose.

I thought I already explained that quite clearly for you, I guess reading comprehension isn't your strongest point?

Or you were just hoping to slip one in while I was making dinner and putting the kids to bed?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by Revealation
Clear evidence that "OUR Soldiers" are ready and willing to turn against their own people
edit on 28/4/2013 by Revealation because: (no reason given)


Good Point.

It has been asked many times on this board, if the police and military would turn on their own citizens.
After reading this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have no problem doing just that if ordered by the government to do so.

All they would have to do is say there is a "terrorist" at such and such area, even if it is one man with a gun and magazine clip. Then hundreds of jackboots would descend on the scene in glee, motioning their weapons toward citizens houses as if they were in Falluja ready to light the first citizen on fire if they do not comply.

Some of the members repeated what they have heard police say they are acquainted with or work with, and it was made clear they would have no hesitation in shooting their own mother in such an instance.

What has happened here sets a bad precedent in the what used to be the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave"

Is this America?
edit on 28-4-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME? To suggest that places a label on ME an the rest of my fellow battles, "We would shoot our own mothers in the back" lmfao, no I don't think so. You obviously have never been around service members, or even been on a military post, yea I get it, there is some serious quack jobs, but what organization, or job doesn't have them? Because you read a couple post an heard a few folks you truly believe that the military would do what you are describing? Please refrain from talking about things you know nothing of.
I am an active duty soldier. I fight to protect the citizens of this country. I know many service members who are aware of whats happening lately, guess what? They ALL AGREE TOO with you guys, some of you poster need to realize that there is a bigger portion of the military that actually agrees with most of you ATSers.
So jacob, how 'bout asking me, or spock if we would shoot our own mothers in there back? We are grilled to follow orders yes, but for the protection of our nation, we know and understand very well the difference of a lawful order an a un-lawful order. Theres alot more soldiers on your side than you think, DON'T EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT COPS AN MILITARY ARE IN CAHOOTS, heck half of the police force try to get a good punch or kick in while trying to detain soldiers or pull them over on purpose, trust me, its a stigma.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Clearly, the photographer was using his camera, was that his crime, taking a pic?


No, it was no "crime", but incredible, incredible DUMB to go to the window and shoot a picture if you KNOW there is a SWAT and snipers outside.

Those people are mentally dealing with the likelihood there could be a gunman in ANY of those houses and the likelihood they can be shot at any moment.

Going to the window and pointing a camera at them...DUMB BEYOND COMPREHENSION.
edit on 28-4-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 





At any moment some of those "civilians" can turn on you, no matter how much you try to rationalize it, you won't get it, no matter how much I tell you


America has no right to be occupying and invading their country. If you partake in a home invasion you have a good chance of getting shot, why should invading a country be any different?




This kind of thinking of yours can only be solved if you decide to join the service and see for yourself.


No. I do not want to be a mercenary for some corporate agenda. Quite immoral.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arnie123

DON'T EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT COPS AN MILITARY ARE IN CAHOOTS, heck half of the police force try to get a good punch or kick in while trying to detain soldiers or pull them over on purpose, trust me, its a stigma.


My apologies Arnie.
I am former military as well and know the ones I served with would never do that either.

My only concern is with the top brass then that are politically connected to the government.

They have an agenda along with the police force that lately does not seem to align with the bests interests of the citizens of this nation.
edit on 28-4-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
reply to post by Bone75
 


71 bombs or 115 Pressure Cookers.


Or skip all of the damn multi-million dollar nonsense of shutting down a metro city, and just get 10 agents with 1 or 2 tracking dogs (they had Suspect #2's scent by then) and go find him. If the trail leads to a house.
Then raid the ONE house.


Ironically, if the guy in the photo had been just 1 of 10 federal agents deployed, we'd still be having the same conversation.


Yes because they were still pointing weapons at innocent civies, for no reason, other than to stroke their own egos.

Simple solution, for all your police, or wannabes out there.

If you wanna dress like a soldier, ride in a soldiers vehicle, and carry a soldiers weapons, and try to use a soldiers tactics, there is a place for that, I believe it is called the military...........

Oh that's right, most of these douches weren't good enough to serve, because soldiers aren't the types that fail tactical training, and put their own safety above all others.

I am quoting the Army values here

L oyaly
D uty
R espect
S elfless service
H onor
I ntegrity
P ersonal courage

LDRSHIP, I didn't see my personal safety being a top priority anywhere in there, I might have missed it, could you point it out for me?

I guess I could quote the oath next, though I don't think it would be any more of a help to your side of the conversation.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's PHOTOSHOPPED. So obvious from the difference in lighting. Am I the only one who can clearly see this?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Personally I believe this is what they are attempting to get people used to, because this is what our future looks like in America, if we continue on the same path of allowing corrupt officials and the government in general to gain more power, at the expense of the masses and personal liberties. The police should be deathly afraid of violating someone's personal rights, especially when that person is not involved in what is going on, and is just looking out his window. But they are not afraid of this because they do not get punished for it.

We have a system designed to punish these people, but it is simply ignored and not followed. And we have reached the point now where even the government is not afraid of violating the personal rights of individuals, because the individual has no recourse against such a high official, or the government. Even if YOU are right and the government is wrong, there is not a thing that can be done if they do not want to allow you to do it. Plain and simple. That is not how the US was supposed to be, and it is the apathy of individuals that has led us to this point.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


US soldiers sure have no problems pointing their weapons at Iraqi and Afghan civilians.


edit on 28-4-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Many have a problem with it, and they don't do so unless they are possing a legitimate threat to the soldiers or another.

Your thinking of the few wierdos that didn't get sifted out of the mix in training, they sneak through in every profession, a lot in law enforcement actually, many of the LEOs washed out of the military for being douches.

So they became police, makes you feel great now doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Arnie123
 





At any moment some of those "civilians" can turn on you, no matter how much you try to rationalize it, you won't get it, no matter how much I tell you


America has no right to be occupying and invading their country. If you partake in a home invasion you have a good chance of getting shot, why should invading a country be any different?




This kind of thinking of yours can only be solved if you decide to join the service and see for yourself.


No. I do not want to be a mercenary for some corporate agenda. Quite immoral.

Yea who are you to decide that? No right? wake up buddy, civilizations and empires have been doing this for thousands of years, you people sound the same, "you have no right, yada yada yada" this is reality, if you don't like it, well thats your opinion, but the nature of our world will continue as such and when our time comes to an end, another nation will rise an guess what? Figure it out.
A mercenary?
A mercenary [1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party"
Yea thats not ME.
A soldier is a person who has enlisted with, or has been conscripted into, a country's armed forces (usually only the army or land forces).
Thats me, next time do some research, thank you, come again.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lioness7777777
It's PHOTOSHOPPED. So obvious from the difference in lighting. Am I the only one who can clearly see this?

Fail.
Both for you and whoever agreed with you.
Image is legit.

Error level analysis:




If interested in looking into the semi-technical aspects of ELA (original source)
Digital Image Analysis and Forensics (alt. link)
edit on 28-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by Arnie123

DON'T EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT COPS AN MILITARY ARE IN CAHOOTS, heck half of the police force try to get a good punch or kick in while trying to detain soldiers or pull them over on purpose, trust me, its a stigma.


My apologies Arnie.
I am former military as well and know the ones I served with would never do that either.

My only concern is with the top brass then that are politically connected to the government.

They have an agenda along with the police force that lately does not seem to align with the bests interests of the citizens of this nation.
edit on 28-4-2013 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

Hey no worries its completely cool, I just get heated sometimes, people don't realize what some soldiers have togo thru, we are not all brain washes killing machines there is Combat Arms an Support Arms, I'm the latter, but I know plenty of 11B knuckleheads. Apology accepted, phew...
But your right about some of our top brass, I think alot of the higher ups tend to forget what we are here for.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by spock51
I am deeply saddened by this entire event.

No argument from me, just my observations.

What happened in Watertown was absolutely, indefensibly, an egregious violation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. THAT was pure Berlin circa late 1930's. Geheime Staatspolizei, anyone?
Americans do NOT cower on lockdown. Americans go get the SOBs responsible for the carnage. THAT is how citizens in a free country support the Police.

Police Officers NEVER EVER point a tactical weapon at an unknown target. You can go be tacti-cool at the range, out on the streets only the serious and sincere are needed. If you are so damned afraid of getting shot, stay your chicken-# ass home.




Thanks for your input Spock.
Another one that gets it.

If your job is to uphold the rights of citizens and to bring others to justice, and you can't do both at the same, then you are in the wrong line of work.


One of the best posts of this entire thread....I put it somewhere between 5th and 7th I think, but out of like 600 posts......just high speed low drag....well said!



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Yes because they were still pointing weapons at innocent civies, for no reason, other than to stroke their own egos.


If that were the case, I would be on your side of the argument, but its not, so I'm not. How many times do I have to point out that he was pointing his weapon at a possible threat in a second story window of an area being secured by his team?



I am quoting the Army values here

L oyaly
D uty
R espect
S elfless service
H onor
I ntegrity
P ersonal courage

LDRSHIP, I didn't see my personal safety being a top priority anywhere in there, I might have missed it, could you point it out for me?


What you are completely (and tactfully) overlooking is the fact that there were 12 other people in the photo who's lives were in his hands. Where's this concern for "personal safety" you keep referring to? And how did this man violate even 1 of those values?

By the way, you should lose the attitude.


edit on 28-4-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join