Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yes Our Soldiers Are Terrorist, So We Will Just Exempt Them From Prosecution

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


If you signed up to "kill! Murder, and invade a given lad" your words not mine, you should have been weeded out for having a very sick mind during one of your psych profiles.




posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 





Because some people need killing, this is a fact.


we are 100% in agreement in that respect

we are 100% in disagreement in who those "people" should be
the op is about OZ/GOV seeking the rewrite it's laws so as to avoid accountability
so please be so kind as to stop making threats against the op and other members, that makes you look very fascist, thuggish, and ironically a terrorist, as you are threatening other members with the use of force [moderator action]
to silence opinions you find disagreeable

[feel free to alert mods now as i am calling your bluff]

i also note you are using the old Nuremberg defense, a favorite of nazi's
edit on 14-5-2013 by TheMagus because: edit



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

yes how dare I use "legal tripe" on a thread about the legal definition of terrorism....

Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 





Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.


No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.

It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


If you signed up to "kill! Murder, and invade a given lad" your words not mine, you should have been weeded out for having a very sick mind during one of your psych profiles.


I signed up to be an aerospace engineer, so i did just fine, the moment they told me what the work involves is the moment i said "no thank you". Military in it's essence is a criminal organization, period.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 
Some people have evolved beyond the caveman level that violence is the only answer.

As I said before, Your soul has still very far to travel to find peace.

May you one day find this peace.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by acrux
 





Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.


No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.

It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.


Of course they are, the definition of Terrorists, well there isn't one, but there is one for terrorism.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)"

Trust, all active Military women/men are Criminals, thus they are terrorists.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.


So are you willing to give up your human rights.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by acrux
 





Yes a thread about how they use legal tripe to change the rules to justify their side of the argument.


No they are doing it to ensure that their troops don’t wind up in jail for following orders after some pathetic human rights lawyer starts playing funny games.

It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.


that is true though not always
when the motivation is to loot another nations resources
it is not terrorism, just theft,
unless keeping the victims terrorized is part of the strategy



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I agree, it isn't them trying to move the goal posts to make terrorist acts legal, it is to dot the i's and cross the t's so no funny business can be used later on.

This is a common practice in legal speak to make sure an exact intent is established beyond and reasonable doubt as to its meaning.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by acrux
 





It applies to nationalist terrorists who are seeking political liberation for a nation or form perceived despot leader, in the eyes of the people they are freedom fighters and in the eyes of their enemies they are “terrorists”. It does not however apply to Al-Qa’ida who have no such goals they are not nationalist terrorists they are Islamic terrorist they have a ideology that is reinforced with religion not patriotism...

It does not change the fact that soldiers are not terrorists.


So how do you define Syria? The west is opposed to the legal and governing regime of Assad by supporting the freedom fighters / terrorists / soldiers or what ever other term you wish to use that is trying to destabilize the country. Love or hate Assad, he is the elected leader of the country. If the world was not such a messed up place it could be really confusing just trying to understand what the hell our leaders are thinking.
edit on 14-5-2013 by kwakakev because: fixed up quote



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


I understand and respect that, I also left at the end of my contract, because I was not overly faund of the way things were going or being handled.

I could not in good conscience help continue the perpetuation of acts they my moral compass disagrees with.

Though your discription of the events is much more severe than my own.

Criminals operate outside the law.

The government acted within the bounds of the law in both cases of invasions.

The US constitution allows the president to send troops anywhere for any reason as long as maximum troop numbers or time periods are not violated without congressional approval.

So it was entirely legal by US law, so not criminal, not morally right, but quite legal.

It was technically against international laws, but the US governement is not bound to these by force or letter of law, it is more of a nicety to follow international laws, as our constitution supercedes all international laws and treaties any time there is a conflict between the 2



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

The government acted within the bounds of the law in both cases of invasions.

Within the bound of the law, what a joke.

They were the ones who wrote the laws in the first place.

When those laws don't suit they just write new ones. The main point of this entire thread.


It was technically against international laws, but the US governement is not bound to these by force or letter of law, it is more of a nicety to follow international laws, as our constitution supercedes all international laws and treaties any time there is a conflict between the 2


If you don't like how the game is played, play by your own rules so you side wins.
What a crock.


edit on 14-5-2013 by acrux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


I understand and respect that, I also left at the end of my contract, because I was not overly faund of the way things were going or being handled.

I could not in good conscience help continue the perpetuation of acts they my moral compass disagrees with.

Though your discription of the events is much more severe than my own.

Criminals operate outside the law.

The government acted within the bounds of the law in both cases of invasions.

The US constitution allows the president to send troops anywhere for any reason as long as maximum troop numbers or time periods are not violated without congressional approval.

So it was entirely legal by US law, so not criminal, not morally right, but quite legal.

It was technically against international laws, but the US governement is not bound to these by force or letter of law, it is more of a nicety to follow international laws, as our constitution supercedes all international laws and treaties any time there is a conflict between the 2


So because it is legal in the eyes of the federal government, automatically makes it okay to invade a country for resources and agricultural rights to that land? They can say whatever they want, it's all criminal act's, American populace is afraid of the one thing they support, invasion, but if it is done on our home land, then it becomes a terrorist act and a criminal offence?

Those laws protect other laws, not people. So all of these act's are terrorist act's, you can sugar coat is much as you want.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


I agree, and if they wouldn't try to make hard line distinctions between freedom fighters and actual terrorists, there wouldn't be this mix up.

I would call the bombers in ireland back in the day freedom fighters, but they are classified as terrorists, and after 911 they stopped bombings and attacks, as it was quite clear what the results were now going to be.

It was all fun and games until they took it too far, yes every time even one human life is lost in violence it is a tragedy, but when it is thousands, in one sitting.......

The best analogy for terrorists being reclassed and hotly persued is this .

If your neighbors dog barks somtimes...meh, you might hate it but meh...

When it kills your kid, things turn to another emotion.

When the terorrists attacked the twin towers with the bomb in the parking garage, yes it was tragic but mostly a meh reaction, when they blew up the marine barracks, it was a legitimate military target and another meh reaction, USS Cole bombing....same thing meh

Hijacking civies and crashing planes killing thousands.............no longer meh, now it is gggrrrr, and at that point, they went too far too many times and ruined for all such freedom fighter types this style of attack.

It is no longer meh, even in a small attack, it is considered an act of actual war, and treated as such.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


But even then they have no evidence on who actually did it (911), again they made excuses and laws to fit those reasons to again, invade a sovereign country, because i know what the feds hate, and that is a human being that can think for them self's. It is a Mafia organization that has the tittle of "U.S.A", to perform terrorists acts on it's home soil and other countries as well,

Like is said, you can sugar coat it all you want, but soldier in all countries are terrorists or criminals, and that includes the people that sponsor them and give them the green light.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


It is not a sugar coating, go before a judge and be responsible for somthing morally wrong, but legally allowed, you might get a stern talking to but not any charges or fines etc...

The exact wording of the law is the way it is for a reason, it is important, and just because you don't agree with somthing, doesn't make it illegal.

Think about the ramifications of everything smobody doesn't like being illegal, we would all be fellons a hundred times over.

You may feel strongly that owning a pitbull should be punishable by death, but thankfully better minds with more rational heads made the laws based on common sense, not foolish emotional knee jerk reactions.


Your confusing your emotional wants with actual real world needs and acts.

They are not ever going to be the same, because from what I have seen of your state of mind, we would not have a military, and we would already be under occupation by one of many foreign countries that doesn't suffer the dillusion that man is peaceful, and we can all get along.

We can't all get along, as evidenced by the fact there has never been peace in any society in the history of man.

We are a violent warlike people, sorry if you wish it were different, but it isn't different, we are violent warlike beasts, so we must have rules that recognise this and plan for this behavior.






top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join