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.

 

Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



Really?

You have dodged the question about who defines our enemies???

Do we have a Declaration Of War against Al Qaeda?


Why yes we do? Been to an airport recently? Seen any viper teams at bus stations etc etc...........

Ever hear of the TSA? Homeland Security???? Get real!!!

What is the reasons our criminal government tells us why we have to sacrifice our freedoms so that they protect us?

Al Qaeda!!!!!

Your either not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse or being payed to shill for the government. NO ONE can be that out of it.................


To my knowledge the TSA has never caught a 'terrorist'.

Right ?

Which was the 'reasoning' behind getting groped.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 





not while we were actively at war with them, as we are "supposed" to be with al ciada.


Nope that is Saudis GIPda.


The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores. Read more: www.upi.com...




Saudi Arabia now "has the opportunity to regain its leading role" in the region after it "subsided in favor of Iran and Turkey following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq," in 2003, observed political analyst Abdullah al-Shummari. Read more: www.upi.com...



His elevation to chief of Saudi Arabia's vast intelligence network, and the unlimited funds it controls, Read more: www.upi.com...



"The Saudis have been remarkably upfront and aggressive about Syria. They haven't been this open about supporting and army an opposition force since Afghanistan." Read more: www.upi.com...


Remember the previous post in this thread about who is the primary financier of AQ ?

AlCIAda is nothing but disinformation.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



Really?

You have dodged the question about who defines our enemies???

Do we have a Declaration Of War against Al Qaeda?


Why yes we do? Been to an airport recently? Seen any viper teams at bus stations etc etc...........

Ever hear of the TSA? Homeland Security???? Get real!!!

What is the reasons our criminal government tells us why we have to sacrifice our freedoms so that they protect us?

Al Qaeda!!!!!

Your either not paying attention or being deliberately obtuse or being payed to shill for the government. NO ONE can be that out of it.................


And another dodge.

Do we have an official Declaration Of War against Al Qaeda?

If not, who declares them the "enemy"? According to you and the OP, the government has...so the government can easily declaring them "non-enemies" in this situation.

Again, the whole premise is silly.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


Need to try again.


Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[63] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[64] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[63] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[65]


Saudi's own AQ.

Pay attention:


A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[6[/b


edit on 28-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
Exactly right Neo.As long as alqaida are being funded they shall always be a threat.Kill the funding and they die.Any country or groups doing so are the real enemies.And the LAST thing this country needs now is Syrian involvement.Who the flying f**k cares about Syria?It seems"our friends"the Saudis are up to their necks in this charade to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawg61
 


Saudi and Iran,.

Hell if people really wanted to stabilize the Middle East every country should go straight to those two and exact 'regime change'.

Cut off the head of the snakes the body will die.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



Well mister or ms. whatever it may be, I fervently wish all the others to come down heavily upon your traitorous butt one of these days when the pendulum swings the other way which it is bound to do as you folks push way to far in what you see as your direction - it will be a ton of bricks fall upon you when it occurs - that will be the personal aspect you refer to won't it? if you have not destroyed it first. Which by the way is how I see you folks aiming.


So now I'm a traitor???

How does that work? For having an opinion?

The more you talk, the more glad I am that I have the polar opposite opinion of you.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


As you express opinions that fly in the face of constitutional rights of others to further an agenda - then yes I am also happy to be your polar opposite.

I happen to support the entire document rather than pick and choose amendments and clauses, those which support political beliefs or candidates such as it seems your opinion sways towards.

In the case of the OP I have yet to see a plausible denial of the premise that this administration is committing treason - all I've seen so far is nothing but excuses and denials based on other wrongs having nothing to do with the subject at hand - nothing that outright opposes the original opinion.

The sorry part is that folks that claim on the one hand to support others rights are seemingly in support of the police state as it exists based only on which party has the white house.

And that folks is part and parcel how the politicians keep getting away with these crimes!



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Which opinions of mine fly in the face of others constitutional rights?

Also, you didn't answer my question...am I a traitor now?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Its silly to think that a proclamation by government would undo 12 years of tyrannical child molestation at airports or spying on your every phone call, text or email or the ability to confiscate your electronics if one is closer than 100 miles from a border without warrant, nor would it undo 12 years of police militarization, out of hand no knock raids or any other transgression that government has made in the false pretense of preventing terrorism such as secret courts ordering arrests out of public scrutiny.

All of this based on a declared by government enemy named Al Qaida.

What is silly (but also warned about) is the government trampling all over peoples rights in the name of this enemy by declaring an unending emergency whilst lately loudly and widely saying this enemy was defeated.

That is SILLY



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Its silly to think that a proclamation by government would undo 12 years of tyrannical child molestation at airports or spying on your every phone call, text or email or the ability to confiscate your electronics if one is closer than 100 miles from a border without warrant, nor would it undo 12 years of police militarization, out of hand no knock raids or any other transgression that government has made in the false pretense of preventing terrorism such as secret courts ordering arrests out of public scrutiny.

All of this based on a declared by government enemy named Al Qaida.

What is silly (but also warned about) is the government trampling all over peoples rights in the name of this enemy by declaring an unending emergency whilst lately loudly and widely saying this enemy was defeated.

That is SILLY


I'm not following.

So the actions by our government make Al Qaeda the enemy? Because they have stepped up security?

You are spinning yourself into an illogical conspiratorial circle. Because from what you wrote above, you don't sound like you believe Al Qaeda is the enemy. It sounds like you think they are the patsy for the evil government to step up security.

But then you turn around and what to accuse people of treason for potentially striking a country who is in a civil war where the supposed "enemy" (who you don't think is the enemy) may be helping the rebels from time to time.

So your accusation of treason is that they may be attacking a country, who is in a civil war, and whose rebels may be helped by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, which you don't even think is the enemy, but since the government at one time claimed they were the enemy, they are now treasonous for attacking Al Qaeda's enemy.

Does that about sum up your conspiratorial Mobius strip?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



And another dodge.

Do we have an official Declaration Of War against Al Qaeda?

If not, who declares them the "enemy"? According to you and the OP, the government has...so the government can easily declaring them "non-enemies" in this situation.

Again, the whole premise is silly


Ever hear of the "War on Terror"? How about every time a politician tells us how scared we need to be because of Al Qaeda?????

Your coyness of using semantics to try and win a debate is tiring.........



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Which opinions of mine fly in the face of others constitutional rights?

Also, you didn't answer my question...am I a traitor now?


The attempts to throw the subject off the rails depriving others information material to the subject of treason at hand which is material to their constitution is a good start. One that potentially indicates a certain mindset or agenda generally associated with professional commentators that are pro administration policy wise, sometimes rumored to be paid to carry out an opinion change on the internet.

If that were at all true, then yes you could be called a traitor by those honestly posting opinion for free. Not saying that's the case - just alluding to the possibility.

Now whether conservative, liberal or any other label we may assign ourselves, I respect those who respect the constitution. I do not think any of it as originally written should be under discussion unless one is proposing a legal amendment process and can gain the wide support required to do so as that is the method stated in the document.

Ignoring or skirting the constitution for expediencies sake is something I take personal and make notice of as it sets a bad precedent for the future of the republic.

Obama and his political supporters have in the past skirted many constitutional provisions as well as congressional powers to further an agenda, this time with regards to Syria it outright in your face threatens to commit treason and most likely already has if the full Bengazi story ever comes out showing its direst support of a named enemy that is used to justify an ongoing national emergency that gives this administration dictatorial powers well beyond what our constitution ever allowed.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AlienScience
 



And another dodge.

Do we have an official Declaration Of War against Al Qaeda?

If not, who declares them the "enemy"? According to you and the OP, the government has...so the government can easily declaring them "non-enemies" in this situation.

Again, the whole premise is silly


Ever hear of the "War on Terror"? How about every time a politician tells us how scared we need to be because of Al Qaeda?????

Your coyness of using semantics to try and win a debate is tiring.........


The "War on Terror" is a tag line, it's not an official declaration of war...for real?

These aren't semantics, they are facts.

Lots of politicians say the same thing about China and Russia, some say it about Iran and North Korea...is your position that any time a politician declares an "enemy" then they are officially and forever the enemy?

Is Iraq still our "enemy"?

Was is treasonous for us to help them rebuild after we just got done fighting with them?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
The attempts to throw the subject off the rails depriving others information material to the subject of treason at hand which is material to their constitution is a good start. One that potentially indicates a certain mindset or agenda generally associated with professional commentators that are pro administration policy wise, sometimes rumored to be paid to carry out an opinion change on the internet.

I doubt it gets paid...then again, take a wade through the following rather shallow kiddie pool. There is a very apparent "party-line" theme I would proffer:

AllenScience's State of the Union


edit on 28-8-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Øbama is using this situation to solidify his apparent status as 'decider' which is all about being deemed a 'dictator' status as later Red Line events are crossed...
see the idea is to have him operate as the supreme "decider " and throw away all the oversight functions of congress


see it's all about taking a a tiny step...hitting only 40 pre-determined targets over 48 hours ...'

but we are unawares that Øbama already gave that target list to both Assad and Putin
so as to avert retasliation.... but to keep the image of being a strong and moralistic leader that will only 'Do whats necessary- & nothing more'

so that the next phase of the Øbama regime will be to take an even shorter advance notice of unilateral action --- be it Syria, or Egypt or the greater prize IRAN (which is totally flaunting their gold swaps instead of using the formerly Western Required Petro-Dollars)


You--- We --- are being conditioned in stages.... remember that StUdio told you what to look for first as events transpire




edit on 28-8-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)


It is with regret that I must confess having overcome my conditioning to inactivity,
and recently have acquired a roommate. We both have a like mind on this subject,
and are bringing public attention to these atrocities and their increasing frequency.
On the other hand never underestimate the power of sodium flouride.

On a happier note-- if the War Powers Act, about all Fearless Lesion has to work
with right now unless Congress approves-- will have a 30 day window to do what
he does best, and will then be required under the Act to obtain approval and oversight.
With the way things are shaping up now, the nuke party could be over in 30 HOURS...
and there won't be anyone left around to throw the rope over the lower, quite sturdy
and mature cherry tree branch. Maybe it's part of the Master Plan.

/sarc "All that can destroy evil is a greater evil." Evil WINS --- is that cool or what? sarc/



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



The "War on Terror" is a tag line, it's not an official declaration of war...for real?


Is the NDAA a tag line? Is watching your family getting groped at an airport a tag line???? Is having the NSA spy on citizens a tag line also?????

For REAL?????

Bottom line, according the War powers act, any act of war without the approval of Congress is at the minimum, "an impeachable" act! Whether or not it is treason, I really don't care at the moment.


edit on 28-8-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience



I'm not following.

So the actions by our government make Al Qaeda the enemy? Because they have stepped up security?

You are spinning yourself into an illogical conspiratorial circle. Because from what you wrote above, you don't sound like you believe Al Qaeda is the enemy. It sounds like you think they are the patsy for the evil government to step up security.

But then you turn around and what to accuse people of treason for potentially striking a country who is in a civil war where the supposed "enemy" (who you don't think is the enemy) may be helping the rebels from time to time.

So your accusation of treason is that they may be attacking a country, who is in a civil war, and whose rebels may be helped by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, which you don't even think is the enemy, but since the government at one time claimed they were the enemy, they are now treasonous for attacking Al Qaeda's enemy.

Does that about sum up your conspiratorial Mobius strip?



The only Mobius operation is the twisting of words and thoughts you use, I compliment your spinning, its impressive.

The enemy remains Al Qaida who is more than a time to time ally of Syrian rebels. Our government here at home has used this enemy to constrict the rights of the citizenry in the name of fighting this group and its off springs for a decade or better.

Now our government claims it is ready to attack a countries government interests in support of a decades long enemy and its interests of destabilization giving it the power to attain influence it does not presently have, that aiding and abetting right there - ok.

Now worse than that lets say the UN finds that chemical attacks are rebel generated, then this government has abetted what they refer to as WMD attacks.

Why are you having such a hard time grasping what really is just about the most cut and dried example of treason ever presented?

Mobius my arse, its plain avoiding the subject.


edit on 28-8-2013 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2013 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



The attempts to throw the subject off the rails depriving others information material to the subject of treason at hand which is material to their constitution is a good start. One that potentially indicates a certain mindset or agenda generally associated with professional commentators that are pro administration policy wise, sometimes rumored to be paid to carry out an opinion change on the internet.

If that were at all true, then yes you could be called a traitor by those honestly posting opinion for free. Not saying that's the case - just alluding to the possibility.


Well, you are wrong...I wouldn't be a traitor even if that were true.

You see, you don't follow the Constitution that clearly defines what a traitor is. You aren't following it in your OP with a ridiculous claim that a military strike against a country that is in a civil war with a group that may have been assisted by Al Qaeda is treason.

For arguments sake, say I was a paid government agent posting here to attempt to sway opinion. Does that put me at war with the United States? Do you know what the SCOTUS has said about interpreting what "at war" or "levying war" against the United States? I doubt you do. Or what "enemy" would I be comforting by being paid by the government to post on the internet?


Ignoring or skirting the constitution for expediencies sake is something I take personal and make notice of as it sets a bad precedent for the future of the republic.


You see, people like you who wrap yourself in the flag and pound your chest with the Constitution rarely understand it or even know what is it in. It is apparent you don't know what is in the Constitution since in your OP you were posting US Code and claiming it was from our Constitution. What does it say about the future of our republic when so called defenders of the Constitution don't even know the difference between it and the US Code?

So pardon me if I don't take you seriously when you say you are offended by people who go against the Constitution.

One thing that offends me are people who claim to support the Constitution but have not taken the time to read it, let alone understand it.



Obama and his political supporters have in the past skirted many constitutional provisions as well as congressional powers to further an agenda, this time with regards to Syria it outright in your face threatens to commit treason and most likely already has if the full Bengazi story ever comes out showing its direst support of a named enemy that is used to justify an ongoing national emergency that gives this administration dictatorial powers well beyond what our constitution ever allowed.


I hate to ruin your day, but you are living in a dream.

Bengazi is a non-story and if we do end up striking Syria, there is zero possibility that Obama will be charged with treason.


But for arguments sake, let's give you the power to make that decision...who else will be charged with treason? Will anyone in Congress that supports it? Will the military personnel involved in the strike be charged as well?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


Oh look the same old actors pop up again beating their war drums. This McCain guy is disgusting me every time he speaks.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Al-Q might be our enemies, but the noncombatant civilians are not.
Not to mention that Al-Q isn't the only force fighting Assad's regime.

The fact of the matter is this: Hundreds if not thousands of Innocents do not deserve to die in chemical gas attacks no matter who is in power there.

That's why we should act if we can prevent more from dying in that manner.
M.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join