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: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


This quote about working on the same side as Al Quida, or however we are spelling it this month, is utter twaddle, and serves as a pretty poor basis for any stance on this issue. For a start, that organisation probably wouldnt exist at all if it had not have been for the involvement of the CIA in its formation, so by definition, this would NOT be the first time that the United States of America has worked along side that organisation. The first time that happened, it was supposed to help dislodge the Russians from Afghanistan, which it was pretty successful in doing.

Second order of business, would be that the Syria issue has some pretty marked differences, when compared with Iraq, or indeed any of the recent geopolitical incidents which have come about in recent years. When specifically compared with Iraq, there was no evidence of the presence of, nor the recent manufacture or use of chemical weapons, when the intervention was enacted against Saddam Hussien. Given that situation on the ground, there was no reason to invade Iraq, because although it had historically used chemical weapons against minority groups, there was no intelligence basis for any belief that they were still stocking such things or intended to use any.

However, in this conflict in Syria, we have seen evidence of the presence, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons against civilian targets. The only questions which remain to be answered by the UN inspectorate, is what chemical was used, how was it delivered, how many were effected, and who, given the nature of the delivery system, components thereof, the actual chemical agent used, and various other factors, is most likely to have delivered it. Once it has been established on an evidentiary basis (rather than on the basis of political rhetoric) who was responsible for the attack or attacks, then THAT will be a point at which proper choices can be made by the UN, and by its members on military intervention. If it proves to be the case that President Assads forces were responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus, then his military and indeed his government will, and rightly SHOULD, be hunted down, and dealt with by the international courts which preside over such matters.

If however, it turns out that the rebel forces were responsible, then any efforts to bring the people responsible to justice, by the hand of the international community, should be by request of the Syrian government, because say what you will about thier treatment of thier people in the general case, unless they are guilty of vast human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons, then our collective governments have no business in thier internal affairs unless expressly invited to comment, or become involved in any way.

The other point I would like to make, is that neither Britain, nor indeed the United States of America, can honestly afford any further military operations of any effective scale. The coffers of both nations have been drained by war debt, and the scheming of representatives of the military industrial complex over the last decade and a bit, and both nations militaries have been cut to some degree, with the US changing some of its Navy expansion plans to meet the debt demands they are under, and with my own nations military suffering vast cuts to funding and staffing, with a much reduced head count in terms of our on the ground operational capacity.

These are NOT circumstances which lend themselves to a poorly reasoned out, un-supported, legally questionable invasion or anything which could be confused for such a thing, so if there is to be any intervention to remove the threat of chemical weapons, it must be PERFECTLY organised, unfailingly accurate in terms of its targets, narrow to the exclusion of all other matters except the issue of chemical weapons use and manufacture, and be a streamlined, cheap and effective intervention, and ideally, at least aim for a zero collateral record, to offset the lazy targeting of idiots in helicopter gunships in other conflicts we could mention (photographers look nothing like a rocket squad... trigger happy yahoo SOBs should not be allowed near gunnery controls. Just saying).

However, to address the title question directly and with as little blather as possible, if working with Al Quiada(?) is treason, then creating it in the first place means that the CIA and others in the US intelligence industry, are traitors a thousand fold and more, and that would make this period a mere continuation of that treason, rather than a new offense. A vast one, rather than a fresh one.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
While I think this is treason.



In the span of 1 decade we went to fighting AQ to aiding and abetting them.We truly have messed up 'leadership'.


Leadership?




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 

War on Terror
Just want to know if this suffice



edit on 29-8-2013 by thethirdsign because: still learning



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


yeah, but in the decade previous to AQ being the enemy, they were the freedom fighters being supported in their struggle against soviet forces.

Go figure!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Beat me to it....and much more eloquently



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Beat me to it....and much more eloquently



Or long winded, depending on your preference!


I just think that it is important for people not to forget history. Every time we forget the mistakes of our past, we doom ourselves to repeat them verbatim, and that cycle became tedious well before I was born !



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Bomb the hell out of both sides? Why bomb anyone? How about we stay out of it & stop supporting the FSA?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


"On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),



The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.


Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War. Combining the links in the chain of legal authorization opened up by the AUMF, the declaration of war reaches any person, organization, or nation connected in a supportive or protective (harboring) fashion, directly or indirectly, with the persons, organizations, or nations responsible for 9-11. It is a war on a network, or web, of interconnected, supportive persons, groups, and nations. It is a war on al Qaeda and its allies and affiliates and on any and all nations and groups that support them."

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...


edit on 29-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I don't know what's still happening in Syria (I don't read/watch news/propaganda anymore)...

So, let me guess:

A clique of old asuric Imperialist twits don't want their grand scheme to be obstructed?


edit on 29-8-2013 by D1ss1dent because: typo



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 






Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?,


What??

okk

This Treason has been committed since 1913 within ...!! aka The Federal Reserve Control of Money a Independent Non State Nor Federal Controlled Company Controlled by a handful.. that allows Borderline Enemy to aggressive Countries to Cause or to feed wars ... All because of a Swipe of a Pen by Wilson and One President that tried to make the Attempted Stoppage and bring back the control of money to the government was Kennedy ... but as we all know what happened in that ordeal don't we Executive Order!! 11110

Executive Order 11110
en.wikipedia.org...


President John F.Kennedy,
The Federal Reserve
And Executive Order 11110
by Cedric X


www.john-f-kennedy.net...

There's your Treason



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
In an Anime, Obama would have a 3-point plan to take advantage of the situation and kill two birds with one stone. However, this isn't an anime and Obama is just going to go in there guns blazing and all without a real strategy. I mean common, when did he ever have a good strategy under his administration?

I don't think going to war with Syria is considered treason unless he allies with AL-quaeda directly. In war, there may be some times you might have to side with the enemy momentarily and then go back at it against each other if that scenario is more favorable. I think going into Syria is syrius business that will lead to a lot of disasters in the future. The American People MUST speak up against this.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Thank you OP for bringing this front and center. Yes, the Sunni rebels consist of and are loyal to the Al Qaeda. All arguments aside for a second, my heart is breaking for our military men and women who are about to be given the order to fight to protect our enemy. Russia just sent its ships to stop us. They are about to be blocked in the Mediterranean sea and risk their lives FOR OUR ENEMY!!!
This is SO wrong. That is not what they signed up for. I am just sick over this.

How dare he.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   



What do you mean about to?





posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


It won't be his first time, so, I'm sure he'll do it.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by AlienScience
 


"On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),



The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.


Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War. Combining the links in the chain of legal authorization opened up by the AUMF, the declaration of war reaches any person, organization, or nation connected in a supportive or protective (harboring) fashion, directly or indirectly, with the persons, organizations, or nations responsible for 9-11. It is a war on a network, or web, of interconnected, supportive persons, groups, and nations. It is a war on al Qaeda and its allies and affiliates and on any and all nations and groups that support them."

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...


edit on 29-8-2013 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


You missed some key words in the AUMF.

"HE DETERMINES"

Key words there.

This is why I have been asking all thread "Who defines who the enemy is?". I was waiting for someone to post this AUMF, because I knew the exact wording of it. According to the AUMF, the PRESIDENT determines who the enemy is. And since the President determines who the enemy is, it is literally impossible for him to aid the enemy since it is up to him to declare who the enemy is.

It took awhile, but that was the point.
edit on 29-8-2013 by AlienScience because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


That depends on which Republicans you are talking about. Those that lean towards the Libertarian side do not want us to get involved in Syria.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
As bad as obama is, john kerry and john mccain have taken stupidity to another dimension all together. I call it the evil twilight zone. Here you go...



First of all 9-11 was an inside job and proven so. Second IF the government wants anyone to STILL believe the official nonsense, why the hell would they AID the muslim brotherhood that has close ties with alqueda THROUGHOUT the middle east?

Nothing makes sense anymore unless people are willing to consider its all part of some grand conspiracy. I have taken the plunge into the ocean a long time ago so nothing really scares me much.


Why aren't the republicans threatning john kerry and barrack obama with impeachment? Have they lost wind in their sails? Has rand paul and the tea party thrown the towel into the ring? I am not conservative but at this point I am not sure I want to see obama finish his term as he is worst than bush.
edit on 29/8/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Some people will conjure up skeems and say just about
anything if they think it's a chance to "get Obama" on something.
The logic behind this is a stretch, to say the least.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Don't forget about Libya people... We were aiding AQ There too remember?!

Or have you guys already forgotten.
edit on 29-8-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Is America's going to declare war on Islamic countries? If so, then America is about to commit acts of treason against its own country and humanity as a whole. Such acts are very treasonous that any leadership or any members should never commit. Look at Bush. He's instigating a war on Iraq and many Islamic nations. The victims, including Saddam Hussein were captured, tried and executed in 2006, while others such as Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join